Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 22 November	24 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Roe[edit]

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

Non-notable former college football player, fails WP:Athlete. Yankees10 00:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never played professionally, and college offensive linemen rarely achieve notability and receive any coverage that is not routine. Offensive linemen get bruises, not Wikipedia articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While college football players can qualify under WP:GNG if they have received significant, non-trivial coverage of their college career in the mainstream media, my searches don't reveal such coverage for Mr. Roe. Cbl62 (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 02:24, 25 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 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:20, 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 merge to Balkan Federation. That is, merge selectively, to thje extent possible and sourceable. Sandstein 05:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Yugoslavia[edit]

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

Unverifiable original research - the article title doesn't seem to exist as a notable concept in the real world; at best, merge the late 1940s synthesized factoids into History of Yugoslavia. WP:PROD declined by author without any explanation and in a minor edit. Sigh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article title does exist as a notable concept in the real world - see the books link above which contain many references to it as a larger Yugoslavia incorporating Albania and Bulgaria. Warden (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Where do you see the notability of the concept? I see it mentioned as "discussion of a greater Yugoslavia" in the first hit, but it's "1991, Croatia and Slovenia seceded from the greater Yugoslavia" and "1990, the Slovene people voted in a plebiscite to separate from greater Yugoslavia" in the second and third hit. That's not the same concept, it's just talking about SFRY. The fourth and fifth hit say "Tito's old dream of a greater Yugoslavia". That's the same concept, but it's both used as a phrase and in reference to a dream. A concept is not automagically encyclopedically notable by being mentioned in passing by a lot of people - secondary sources discussing the specific dream are necessary to demonstrate its standalone notability. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may be a good idea to merge the relevant details of this article into Yugoslavism which already deals with the doctrines of Yugoslav nationalism (notice the pipe). This article exists in Croatian too but on neither page is there a single source and I can personally find nothing on the search engines. The merge will be most amicable. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About article at Croatian Wikipedia, it was writen by me, more correctly, translated by me. I wasn't considering it's notability. I wanted to nominate this article for deletation there month ago, but I was banned. Just don't take Croatian article "Velika Jugoslavia" in consideretion while discussion deletation of this one. --Wusten fuchs 20:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and properly source. It's a notable concept and one with history behind it, but it does need sourcing. Night Ranger (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(additional comment) Here are some references (books and news searches) I found discussing "Greater Yugoslavia":

*[1]

*[2]

Please remember that to prove a topic notable sources must exist, not necessarily be present in the article (although that does help). AFD is not for cleanup. Night Ranger (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes the concept is notable, every editor on Yugoslav-related topics knows that. But the question is whether Greater Yugoslavia is that true notion. For example, the only way a unifying ideology can exist is if there is interest (albeit small numbers) from every party purported to be affected. We all know there are loyal Yugoslavs in the six former republics but what about Bulgaria? I have never encountered a Bulgarian to consider himself or his nation Yugoslav. If this is wrong, then we need names of the proponents among the Bulgarian nation who wishes to see Bulgaria part of the south Slavic state. They use the term yuzhni slaviyani (south Slavs) to include themselves within an umbrella group but never Yugoslavs per se. The actual concept which aimed to unify Bulgaria and Yugoslavia alongside other states was the Balkan Federation and I fear the original editor may have crossed wires. The ideas behind a Balkan federation was precisely that each unit functioned autonomously with a central administration holding ceremonial status. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've only posted generic google searches that are already linked above and one of which is also debunked above. The threshold of notability certainly isn't "it can be googled" - that's even worse than WP:ITEXISTS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please... you're really not this dense. My argument clearly is not that "it can be googled", but that a large number of reliable sources discuss this topic. Differentiating between a Google search that lists the reliable sources and copy/pasting those same sources here is pedantic. If you think all of the Reliable Sources I've found using a simple Google search are dubious, forgeries or otherwise unreliable, please explain. Otherwise, I've provided reliable sources and now it's up to the deletionists to explain why the sources aren't acceptable. Debunking one of them doesn't wipe the lot. The definition of WP:N is coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources, and I've provided a multitude. Night Ranger (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you have not demonstrated a single clear example of significant coverage of this concept in any particular book - surely if you believe there's a multitude, one or two can be cited as a trivial example. As it is now, for all we know, they could all be talking about it in a tangential manner, and most of them could be using the phrase in a generic manner. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a news article [3], specifically:

According to Tomic, the Ravna Gora movement advocated the idea of ‘a Greater Serbia within Greater Yugoslavia’. Greater Yugoslavia would comprise parts of Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Italy and Albania and would be a federal state. It would comprise a Greater Serbia, a rump Croatia and a Greater Slovenia. Serbia and Southern Serbia (Macedonia and Kosovo) would be parts of Greater Serbia in the east and southeast. Bulgarian cities of Vidin and Custendil were to be annexed to it. Its southern territories would comprise Montenegro, Herzegovina and northern Albania. In the west, it would include Bosnia, western Dalmatia, Serb-inhabited parts of Lika, Kordun and Banija and a part of Slavonia. The Dalmatian coast from Sibenik to Montenegro would belong to Serbia too.

Some other news stories [4], [5] (Tito, the Balkan visionary who struggled for the creation of a "Greater Yugoslavia" that would include Albania, Bulgaria and Greece...), [6] (under heading "Carinthia"), [7] (After World War II Yugoslavia and Bulgaria wanted to establish a Greater Yugoslavia but it failed because Bulgaria proposed that the two states should form a new federal republic, while Yugoslavia wanted Bulgaria as the seventh member state). Night Ranger (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked through all of them, and they all seem somewhat tangential - for example the university professor's testimony at the ICTY is good, but it's primarily about Greater Serbia, which is a separate topic. The 1987 Toronto Star article seems specifically about this since it talks about it in the preface, but that one is actually marked as "Section: LETTER". Doesn't that mean that it was actually a reader's letter? Besides, since we're dealing with history here, I think a reasonable standard of significant coverage would be at least a secondary source from the said field, rather than news talk. By this measure, we could have separate articles about a lot of ideas discussed in politics daily. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article should be deleted since there is no serious literature (or any literature) that deals with this subject. Such concept doesn't exist, it is made up by creator of this article. Map is also false. This article serves to the purpose of ridiculing Wikipedia. --Wusten fuchs 19:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds about 876 books discussing Greater Yugoslavia. Night Ranger (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds about 876 books mentioning Greater Yugoslavia in different context. --Wusten fuchs 23:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Night Ranger (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To all, doesn't Balkan Federation cover everything? Can it not be added that this was also an irredentist goal for Greater Yugoslav proponents? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be fine and allow that article to expand as well. If we don't have enough for a stand alone article we certainly have enough for a section in that article on Greater Yugoslavia. Night Ranger (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do that, then cite the books you have found - or some of them if there are too many. The best course of action to take then will be not to delete Greater Yugoslavia but to redirect it to Balkan Federation. You can display "also Greater Yugoslavia" close to the bold headword. Can a consensus be reached for this? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(note to closing admin) if this is closed as delete can you please userfy the article to my userspace so I can rework it into the Balkan Federation article with the references found? Night Ranger (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Federation#After Comintern period looks like a match. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full agreement to above. The part is very small and could do with a good paragraph extra within the same article, and there we have interest from Georgi Dimitrov which is something if not anything from the other side. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:41, 27 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. The consensus is keep; the best name can be discussed on the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest European law firms 2009[edit]

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

List is not what it says it is, it is misleading. If you add in the UK none of this list would get into the top 10 (at today's FX rate). Would have moved the page to a new title if I could come up with one that did not seem contrived. Mt king ^(edits) 03:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know a reason in policy that we shouldn't have a list of the largest law firms in continental Europe. Maybe just say that and leave off the 2009 in the title. BigJim707 (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you would favour renaming it to List of largest law firms in continental Europe ? Mt king ^(edits) 21:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That sounds okay to me. BigJim707 (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for some reason I cant access the source link, and given that some continental European countries are not listed can you check with what the source says is included ? Mt king ^(edits) 23:42, 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to List of largest law firms in continental Europe. Useful, encyclopedic, informative. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now been able to access the source, it is not clear what countries they have used, save they have excluded the UK so think the more accurate title should be List of largest law firms in Europe (excluding UK) (2009). Mt king ^(edits) 23:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is the only European country not part of the continent of Europe though. So the suggested List of largest law firms in continental Europe makes sense. Dream Focus 05:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Republic of Ireland ? Mt king ^(edits) 06:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have it nation by nation then. That'd make more sense. Or just nations that have enough entries, like the UK, get their own separate list, with everyone else here. Dream Focus 08:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list is taken from a single source that is "Europe (excluding UK)" so unless new sourcing can be found List of largest law firms in Europe (excluding UK) (2009) is the best name for the source. Mt king ^(edits) 10:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets all requirements for a list article. If you were looking for information about law firms, you'd want to find out which were the largest. Some of them have their own articles already. Dream Focus 05:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clarify name with 'continental' - perfectly standard list article, no reason in policy to delete.Rangoon11 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can't use continental as it includes firms from Republic of Ireland. Mt king ^(edits) 03:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then 'List of largest law firms in Europe (excluding UK)' works for me.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the only problem that I have is, that it is listed by revenue, not by number of attorneys. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 29 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

River City Showdown[edit]

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

No indication of notability. This is a college football game that was played twice and then discontinued. It received only marginal coverage (at best) at the time the games were played, and none since its discontinuation. —Ute in DC (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to indicate notability of article subject as more than just a game --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 02:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources provided. A google search shows some, but mostly pay per view news sites. If sources crop up, I'd switch my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable college football game series, played twice and discontinued. No non-routine coverage of the series exists among secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of the series per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:52, 29 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. Too many of the delete arguements were based on IDONTLIKEIT and must consequently be ignored; the keeps show there are sufficient sources to meet GNG. The policy based argument has it. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy riders[edit]

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

Small non-notable club with just 500 members in one country. No references. I believe that it fails the notability criteria for organisations. Biker Biker (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - http://www.mc24.no/article.php?articleID=2827&categoryID=6 was all I could find, and I'm not sure if it's reliable and notability-asserting or not. →Σ τ c. 22:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Try clicking on the "News" section in the "find sources" header for this listing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion - but I'd point out that "a small club with just 500 members in one country" also describes the Australian Federal Parliament. Size is not an indicator of notability. Particularly large bike clubs (and this is a reasonably large one) normally generate sufficient coverage to pass the GNG. I can't immediately find any coverage for THIS group in reliable sources but there is a very large amount of coverage in non-reliable sources (blogs etc) and given the language issue it would benefit from a few more people taking the time to look. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you're talking about a club that anyone may join, size matters. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete. Unable to find any significant coverage, but my search is limited to web-available sources and that doesn't rule out coverage that may exist in reliable Norwegian sources. ^Bongo_matic 00:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am neither a bike rider nor a member of this organization, but I can confirm that the group is notable from a Norwegian perspective and that it is significant in the way that it distiguishes itself from other biker organizations in northern Europe. It may be more relevant for a Norwegian Wikipedia entry. CaliViking (talk) 21:36, 13 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 - T P 02:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, checked google news and found a lot of articles about the group. Most in non-english, but someone who is multi-lingual could fix this up quick. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added links and summaries of Norwegian language references - mostly newspaper articles though. Also agree with CaliViking. Bondejenta (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User has four edits. I also don't see any additional references to the article. Neutrality^talk 07:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - no references demonstrating notability. Neutrality^talk 07:22, 21 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Try clicking on the "News" section in the "find sources" header for this listing. Then open some of the links. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: ideally, the sources alluded to by Richard-of-Earth and Bondejenta should be posted here investigated before a final decision is made. I almost closed this as delete, but decided to leave it open after reading the most recent comments. Also, for the record, "user has four edits" is not helpful—closing admins are perfectly capable of determining users' experience and weighting their comment appropriately. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passing GNG, per: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and more at Google News. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, this article should be renamed to Holy Riders, with both words capitalized. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources showing significant coverage has been found. Dream Focus 13:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a run of the mill biker ministry. How many pages are we going to have based on one or two 200-word local newspaper clippings that say "Wow! They dress in biker leathers AND they're Christians?!" There are a lot of motorcycle ministries. The perennial news coverage about them is quite rote. Wikipedia does not need an article about each of them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD is just about this article, not other articles or the hypothetical creation of other articles. Article inclusion is based upon topic notability, not overall assessments of the types of articles that Wikipedia should or shouldn't have. Also, refer to Wiki is not paper. —Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. One outcome of an AfD discussion, besides keep or delete, is merge. The question of whether to merge or not can't be considered without taking into account other articles. By definition, a merge involves other articles. I'm not saying this should be merged, but creating an single article out of these repetitive, run of the mill motorcycle ministry articles would that would be better than keeping this one. And we do need to stop and think if it is logical to have five or ten or 100 articles that all say, "the Blank for Christ/for Jesus/for God MC is special for being bikers who spread the gospel." Can they all be special?
The fact is that bikers drink a lot, do a lot of drugs, and flout the law. Ergo, they become addicts and generally mess up their lives. Ergo, they become fodder for recovering addict motorcycle clubs and/or religion-based motorcycle clubs. There's a lot of them and they're more or less all the same. The news stories about them all have the same hook. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for GNG. --Cox wasan (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough secondary sources to support a claim of notability.--Cavarrone (talk) 12:42, 28 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. for now. This can be undeleted/recreated once its aired Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Heart Tuesday[edit]

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

Declined prod. Article is about an upcoming TV series which falls under WP:CRYSTAL. There is virtually no information on this series and no dates or confirmation that production has even begun. Series may eventually be notable but having an article now is simply too premature. France3470 (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 22:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Passing mentions like this are the best sourcing available. Falls well short of significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not notable yet, but I think a Redirect to Ne-Yo and then adding a sentence or two about it there is better than deleting. JDDJS (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Once the show airs more references should became available. Vincelord (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Snowboard Co[edit]

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

Non-notable company. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 21:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage to estblish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Vastić[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has only ever played in the non-fully pro Regionalliga. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 22:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:21, 30 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. Sandstein 05:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Lawyers Association[edit]

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

This is in conjunction with Australasian Law Teachers Association, however, I did not catch it until just now. The article reads like an advertisment, and does not have any notable or reliable third party sources to provide factual information. Lithorien (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most refs go their website, except a link to a map and a link that 404's. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 22:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everplanes[edit]

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

Unremarkable just-released video game. No indications of notability, no significant coverage. Google search on the name shows only 76 unique results, none from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:59, 23 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) 02:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Not even a claim of significance. If this were a web-based game we could speedily delete it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delere - Non-notable game creator ("dad & son", englishmen Dennis & Richard Lowe), no significant coverage in independant sources. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 20:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources. Non-notable game. SL93 (talk) 23:32, 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 keep. Unmistakable consensus to keep;. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gangster[edit]

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

What we have here is a dictionary definition, which is unnecessary since we already have Gangster. The rest of the content simply repeats what can already be found at the respective individuals' articles or the American Mafia article. ~~Delete this and move Gangster (disambiguation) here.~~ RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Replicates a host of articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article should be kept as a WP:DABCONCEPT. To put this in perspective, the article receives a staggering 20,000 page views a month and has hundreds of articles linked to it. It is also clear that these people are not searching for items on the dab page as this page gets less than 600 views a month. Simply deleting this page and replacing it with a dab would be extremely ill-considered. The topic of gangster is a notable one, and definitely much more than a dictionary definition. Yes, the current page doesn't do the topic justice, but deletion is not the way to approach it. France3470 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. France3470 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as valid link target (i.e., not a dab page). Whether it remains its own article (as is, expanded, or rewritten) or redirects to American Mafia or other page is a separate question. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, scratch the suggestion that the dab page be moved. Leave it as a link target, but the repetitive content should go. As I said before, what we have here is a dictionary definition, more specific information should (and already is) elsewhere. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 05:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article at present is very poor, entirely about the USA and entirely trivial. But organized crime just gives a theoretical treatment of the subject. Presumably our readers want a good meaty overview with plenty of links to Scarface and Chotta Mumbai, Sicilian Mafia, Chechen mafia, Yakuza, Tongs and so on. A huge subject with masses of sources. It just needs someone, not me but someone else, to expand it to book length. A notable subject. I may add a few headings. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you just did was add a bunch of garbage you picked up from other articles. How was that helpful? This is precisely why I believe the article should be deleted, because it is an undifferentiated dumping ground of repetitive information. Discussion of gangs should be in the articles about those gangs; discussion of specific gangsters should be in the articles about those gangsters. Once that is done, there is nothing here but a dictionary definition. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 05:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I added (and you undid, and I put back) was a collection of links to articles for which short summaries could be included in this article. A reader who searches for "gangster" almost certainly wants an article about gangsters, with summary-style information on the most notorious. It should also give summary-style information on famous gangs like the Mafia and Tongs. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not have any of that information, that is why we have separate articles on those different gangs and individuals, as well as more general articles on the Mafia and organized crime. You want to turn this article into a dumping ground for repetitive information already covered elsewhere in more appropriate places. Your edits simply make no sense. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to make of the AfD and I'm certainly leaning keep. But the recent changes have turned a minor problem into a complete mess that only looks good because it has fifty references. There's absolutely no benefit in artificially piecing together bits from articles here and there: this is why we have internal links. The duplicated content will just be left to rot or will basically require twice the maintenance effort, all for the sake of not deleting Gangster. I understand the concern of RepublicanJacobite although I don't think the solution is deletion. But between deletion and what we have now? I prefer deletion. Pichpich (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A summary-style article on a broad subject such as "solar system" or "mammal" is useful, giving an overview and leading readers who want more information to more detailed articles on specific topics. The summary often provides bridging information that is not found in the "child" articles. Much of the content in this overview does not exist in other articles. Some does. Where there is overlap, there is a risk of forking in coverage of areas that are still evolving. But reader interest is, to me, a trumping argument. If 10,000 readers look up the subject in Wikipedia each month, we should give them some information, and there is no obvious redirect. Not gang and not organized crime. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The end result is a pseudo-article that doesn't even resolve the last problem you note. It initially pretends to carefully distinguish gangs and gangsters from organize crime yet ends up siding with the basic view that modern usage is that a gangster is a member of a criminal organization. So a two-line sentence that would point the reader to either organized crime or gang is just as good. Your mashup contains a list of notorious gangsters which, as far as I can tell, is chosen quite arbitrarily and completely Western-world oriented. (Along the same lines, the sentence The United States has profoundly influenced the genre, but other cultures have contributed distinctive and often excellent gangster movies. absolutely has to go.) The whole "Regional variants" section does not even discuss gangsters but organized crime so why should it be duplicated here? And why is the Albanian Mafia more deserving of a paragraph than the Serbian Mafia or the motorcycle gangs that have at times dominated Scandinavian countries? Isn't India worth discussing in the Asia section? True, gangster gets 10000 page views (I would guess that a significant portion of these are through internal links by the way) but that doesn't mean that the best solution is to provide the relevant information under this title. That's what redirects are for. You cite mammal as an example but that article contains topic-specific content and is most definitely not an "overview and leading readers who want more information to more detailed articles on specific topics. It doesn't contain a list of notorious mammals. Ditto solar system. There's a beautifully crafted article on organized crime. We should be sending our readers there instead of providing them with an inferior article. Pichpich (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple answer is that there is a huge literature on the subject, hundreds of articles link to the title and page views run at around 25,000 monthly. The subject is highly notable and of great interest, so deletion is not a reasonable option... Aymatth2 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is different from both "organized crime" and "gang". The well-written article on "organized crime" is a theoretical discussion of psychology, structure, activities and so on. The article on "gang" also aspires to give an abstract discussion of the different types of gang. This article links to those two but largely avoids theory and describes real-life gangs and gangsters around the world, and their depiction in the arts. It is about specific instances, which is (I think) that most people will be looking for. I prefer to keep the specific separate from the abstract... Aymatth2 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a mash-up? Less than it should be. Ideally every paragraph would point to a {{main}} article, and would be much the same as the lead to that article. But the "child" articles, where they existed, often had poor leads and poor sourcing, so this contains more new content than it should have to. But maintenance is not a concern since almost all the content is historical. The section on Al Capone is unlikely to need updating... Aymatth2 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of room for improvement. I have tried to make a start, but it is a huge subject. The overview of regional variants has large gaps, and the list of notorious gangsters is almost entirely from the USA 1930-1960. The section on movies is quite incomplete, and there is nothing on other media... Aymatth2 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point: I would defend the statement "The United States has profoundly influenced the [gangster movie] genre". See the first sentence in the next section, based on a thoughtful source. Although the first gangster movie was Australian, the USA has had great influence. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic has received significant coverage in numerous secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's unquestionably true but isn't it irrelevant? We don't have an actual article on street race despite the significant coverage. The question is about organizing the content efficiently and in a way that makes sense to our readers. Pichpich (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep Absurd nomination.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started a superficial rescue job. User:France3470 points out that the article gets a lot of page views. That justifies more effort to meet our readers' needs. Far more can be added. Somewhere I saw an assertion that the trade in illegal drugs alone is over 1% of the global economy, presumably mostly handled by gangsters. This is such a rich, broad and deep subject with so much evident public interest, it is hard to understand the lack of content. Any opinions? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:32, 25 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APDTA[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY. Article used as source on term does not actually include term. (Clarification: the term is included in a comment, posted by a user using the same username as the originator of the Wikipedia article, posted on the date that the reference was added to the Wikipedia article. Actually, the term is the comment.) Prod was deleted on the basis that someone holds a registered trademark on it, but that (and one photo of that trademark on a shirt) does not equal notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 19:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and removed The Atlantic Wire reference. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 20:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- with so many people using the term All Praises Due to Allah and its abbreviation why would this be deleted. It is very well written. APDTA is not a dictionary word or new term but an abbreviation to an ancient phrase. APDTA is now a brand, logo, a trademarked one at that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiobums (talk • contribs) 00:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was extensive, well source discussion of the abbreviation, then it would qualify, but just because a term exists does not mean that there is much to be said encyclopedically about it. If it's a term that's in clear use, you can see about putting it in Wiktionary. As for it being a trademark - there have been over 3 million trademarks that folks have sought to federally register; surely we are not to have articles on all of them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just an assortment of definitions, with no substantial content, and no evidence that any of the meanings is notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete . Also please check out Nation19 and other pages edited by this creator. Hes spam linking it everywhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:44, 30 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 RESULT. Speedy keep #5; article is linked on main page, non-admin closure--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Columbus Crew head coaches[edit]

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

The table itself can be merged into the Columbus Crew article; the list isn't large enough to be a standalone list. Albacore (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge much better and more useful as part of the team's page.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per above; no need for a different article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braniff747SP (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:55, 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 Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia Barristers' Society[edit]

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

Self organisation for lawyers. This two liner article states nothing what makes them notable. On internet just over *19.000 hits (including own website and members) and 3 on Google News. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as author). As a Bar, the organization impacts everything lawyers do in the province, from letting them practice (the famous Bar exam) to removing their ability to do so, setting the cadre and guidelines on professional conduct, etc. As such, I believe it is inherently notable, much like a court system would be. Yes, it's a stub, and I don't have time nor the interest to research the matter and to make a more complete article out of it. I have provided two news references where the Bar is mentioned prominently. Regardless of my view that the Society is inherently notable as the statutory body for NS lawyers, if the CBC, CTV, the The Chronicle Herald and other media outlets think the NSBS is worthy enough to make the news, it passes WP:GNG. I have only researched in some specific media outlets, but I'm sure with more focused research one could come up with more evidence of notability. Best regards. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - passes GNG; in fact, I would be quite surprised to learn of any state/provincial bar that doesn't. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know every article is judged on his own merits. The article is just two sentences long and fails to tell what makes it notable. To keep it because there are articles like this, is no valid reason. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of data. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It clearly asserts notability. In fact, remarkably for a stub, each phrase is a claim of notability and is referenced. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In your opinion. To me, it just tells what they are supposed to do by their Charter. Not what makes them special, outstanding or notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but a comment - I think that this is probably notable for a number of reasons, but it's not notable simply because it is inherently so (bar associations are not the same as the licensing bar, depending on the jurisdiction; I don't know how Canada works, but in the U.S. most bar associations are private organizations that licensed attorneys ("members of the bar") may or may not be required to join, and there's nothing inherently notable about that), nor is it not because it simply doesn't have a lot of google hits. AfD needs to be based around WP:N, not ghit counts. It's not a speedy keep either. We have specific criteria for speedy keeping and many of them imply some bad faith in the nomination. This is not a speedy keep candidate by any stretch of those guidelines. It is, however, a keep imho. Shadowjams (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but my understanding of WP:SK is that it refers to closure reason. My use of the term is a discussion is a reference to what is, to my mind, - and I could be mistaken - the vernacular usage; that is, it indicates that the conclusion is obvious and may be a prelude to an eventual WP:SNOW decision. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see 5 reasons for speedy keep, and unless I am wrong, no one applies here... Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said, I'm not referring to WP:SK in my comment. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, passes policy. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Easily meets WP:N; in addition to what has already been noted, I'm seeing plenty of coverage in The Canadian Press. A few examples:
- "Labour lawyer taking over as president of Nova Scotia Barristers Society". The Canadian Press [Toronto] 21 June 2002
- "Nova Scotia Barristers Society warns lawyers of impersonation scam". The Canadian Press [Toronto] 04 Aug 2006
- "Audit leads to suspension of former N.S. judge by barristers' society". The Canadian Press [Toronto] 27 Aug 2002
- "Nova Scotia bar society to decide whether to open misconduct hearings". The Canadian Press [Toronto] 15 Oct 2001
- "NS barristers' head rejects plan to force law firms to hire minorities" The Canadian Press [Toronto] 07 Sep 2000
- ... and so on... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm surprised the article was nominated AFTER sources were added to the original stub. Sourcing is easily found to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources show notability. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold On (Name Taken album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. No references, except for a piece of trivia from about.com. All I can find are a couple of mediocre reviews on sites of questionable reliablity[13][14]. Pburka (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This is the band's most notable release. Other than their 2003 split EP with the notable band Bayside, who have an extensive discography, I am in favor of deleting the rest of their discography. But their single album is definitely of note in the punk community. I will add more reviews for it and the split EP.

WP:AVOIDCOI Sweetmik (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Refs to additional reliably-sourced substantial coverage has been added to the article. There's also evidence of a respectable audience for the albums: last.fm reports 425,000 listens to the album, "Panic" off the album has 169,000 YouTube listens, "Control" has 255,000 listens. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:35, 20 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, causa sui (talk) 18:16, 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 redirect to Mongolia–Russia relations. merge or smerge don't work for unsourced material (merging OR!) but a redirect seems a suitable compromise between the desire to link the article to the relations page witjhout introducing original research into the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of Mongolia in Ulan-Ude[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. consulates are rarely rarely notable. could not find any coverage except what confirms its existence. obviously if there is extensive coverage in Mongolian or Russian I'll happily reconsider. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but again, is an AFD needed? There is no real assertion of notability and attempts to delete other ways are more effective.

--TM 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Russian Republic of Buryatia is ethnically and historically tied to Mongolia, and this Consulate seems to be an important thing in Mongolia-Russia relations. GreyHood ^Talk 16:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - indeed notable, given the intensive political relations between Buryatia and Mongolia, circumventing Moscow. Pantherskin (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

which should be in the Mongolia-Russia article. Do you have evidence of specific coverage of this consulate? LibStar (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mongolia–Russia relations. Apart from the loaction and general things, the article doesn't give us much information.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 21:47, 19 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, causa sui (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BIAS explains why it may appear to be non-notable. causa sui (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you have provided zero reasons for how this meets WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Mongolia–Russia relations. At present the sources have not been shown to meet WP:GNG. However, there is another consideration. Not everything that could be notable is better off with its own page. When, as here, there is not a great deal to say then a merge is better for the reader because the information can be read in context. What the suggested target needs is a 'Diplomatic missions' section with significantly more on the missions than is there at present. Naturally, if that section becomes too large through organic growth then a breakout might be appropriate in the future. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The opinions for keeping do not make arguments in terms of WP:GNG. Sandstein 05:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not many contributors to the discuss, but very clearly does not meet notability standards.ough DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Eastman[edit]

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

Three weeks ago I removed all the citations that failed WP:GOODREFS and flagged the article for notability. Of the four references that remain, one is self-published and the others are passing mentions. I don't think there are any significant refs that I missed, so this fails both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It's also still an orphan two years after creation. —SMALL JIM 18:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find substantial coverage about the subject. I reviewed the older version of the article prior to the reference removal, and those references are not at all useful. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO for lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 17:11, 25 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 speedied G12 by Fastily (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of Citizen's Guide To Colorado's Water Heritage, copyright 2004 Colorado Foundation for Water Education). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Water History[edit]

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

I feel that this article violates Wikipedia:Notability. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The history of water management and water rights in Colorado is probably a topic worth of inclusion under some name (and, frankly, might be around here somewhere -- I didn't look). But the real problem here is that this article is a copyright violation of the cited source, lifting the text of the entries verbatim from the timeline appearing on the referenced pages. I've tagged the article G12 as a result. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:01, 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 a7, being an assistant engineer/mixer isn't an indication of notability, even if he worked on hit songs. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ross 'Dights' Parkin[edit]

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

Is this article even notable? I think he needs to have a much larger repetoire. He isn't even a producer, just an assistant engineer and mixer. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 17:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the author of the article: I understand your concern, Calvin, however Ross has mixed a UK top 10 single and engineered (not just assisting) 3 platinum albums (whether in their entirety or selected songs), specifically 2 platinum albums from N Dubz and 1 double platinum album from Westlife. He has engineered #1 single from Dappy (No Regrets) and its follow up, Rockstar, which is likely to be a top10 (or another number1) when will be released after Christmas. In general I don't think engineers and mixers should be dismissed as not relevant, because they are vital personell in the recording process. (All credits included in the article are confirmed in the albums' inlay) P.S. Apologies if I wasn't supposed to reply here. DeBrando( talk) 18:24, 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 keep. Sandstein 05:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original rudeboys[edit]

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

Article about a band with no reliable sources. While there is a claim of notability, the lack of sources mean that notability is not demonstrated. The article contents cannot be verified by readers. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Despite the claims of selling well and having views on youtube, a search shows that they don't currently pass WP:NBAND. I haven't seen where they've charted anywhere (Ireland or otherwise) or been the focus of substantial articles or the focus of a tv spot. They might make it big one day, but they're not there yet and Wikipedia isn't an advertising tool to help fuel notability. It has to be already established to get an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation if their career takes off. At this point, they have some coverage with this as the most substantial. They appear to be an up and coming band that's on the cusp of making it but just haven't quiet got there yet. Good luck to them. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep substantial feature in ireland's newspaper of record. gig review in irish music magazine Hot Press. the post above has a piece from the Irish tabloid The Sunday World. notability is met irrespective of the status of their career. 86.44.39.133 (talk) 03:02, 19 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Relisting to allow for more thorough discussion of the sources provided by 86.44... and whether or not they are sufficient to demonstrate notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (original nominator). First, thanks to the IP editor for finding the sources and to HJ Mitchell for relisting. I'm happy that the newly located sources now show that the band meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND so the article should be kept. Sparthorse (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nomination's basis is upon the rationale of this band having "no reliable sources", which was nullified by: Irish Times article and Sunday World. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources found. Dream Focus 02:32, 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. Personally , I think he's likely to be notable, if we could work with the necessary sources; but we cannot possibly keep the article unless they can be identified. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Shawky El Fangary[edit]

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

Despite the claims in the article itself, I cannot find evidence of notability of this person. Tagged for relying on a single source for over 2 years, now. Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For a supposed writer who have authored "30 books", I found him mentioned only once in google books [15]. Notablility issues. Delete.

Tamsier (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. His 30 books must not be very influential. SL93 (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be no coverage online nor in the article to establish notability or verfiy claims made in the article. JoshyDinda (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability of GNG. --Cox wasan (talk) 14:49, 27 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 Fun in Acapulco (album). soft deletion + redirect Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Room to Rhumba in a Sports Car[edit]

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

No indication of significance (did not tag it as CSD:A9 since the artist's article exists). —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 17:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "No Room to Rumba in a Sports Car" is already a redirect to Fun in Acapulco (album), the last Elvis album before Beatlemania.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sinners Never Sleep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bite My Tongue[edit]

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

article about a single from an unreleased album. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sinners Never Sleep, the parent album. Lack of significant coverage for the song means it would appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS; per the latter guideline, non-notable songs "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Gongshow ^Talk 17:58, 30 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 g11, advertising/promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sir Boss[edit]

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

I believe they are a non notable band, through they do claim som e notability and therefore I cannot submit them from CSD. No albums out yet, but claim to play sold out local clubs. BBC link does mention them getting signed. Page creator appears to be their agent. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure needs to be re-written, as it is in the first person (see WP:PROMOTION) and in general very little Wiki-fit. The fact that they have been signed by a relevant label doesn't make them Wiki-worthy. Yet. DELETE. McMarcoP (talk) 17:11, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SV The Silk Vodka[edit]

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

Article seems to be a promotional piece about a vodka that is no longer produced, by a bankrupt Russian company. Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The only WP:RS is the one about the company that produced this product going bankrupt. EricSerge (talk) 16:04, 23 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, Sandstein 05:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find anything that would be considered a reliable source. The product doesn't seem to have passed WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete Non-notable product/company. Could not find reliable sources about it (searching in English). Google News finds mostly press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) HurricaneFan 25 00:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Life Begins for Andy Panda[edit]

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

A non notable article without any reliable sources to assertain it notability therfore it should be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant as the first of many Andy Panda shorts by animator Walter Lantz. This short was notable enough to be mentioned by name in Lantz's New York Times obit,[16] and sufficient sources can be found at GBooks[17] for example [18][19][20][21]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per errant nomination rationale. With respects to the nominator, topic notability is dependent upon the topic being covered in relaible sources, and NOT upon whether or not an article on that topic contains those sources. We do not delete articles on demonstrably notable topics simply because their current state lacks use of available sources. We instead look first to see if sources are available, and only then judge whether or not concerns are addressable. That said, and with appreciations to User:Arxiloxos, it was easy to determine that this topic has the required siginificant coverage as is veriably unique in its being the very first Andy Panda cartoon ever. Time to fix, not delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough secondary sources to support a claim of notability.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:45, 28 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Morshed[edit]

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

Delete. Ordinary associate professor with ordinary architectural credits. This is a well-written bio which the editor modestly describes as a "stub." Nevertheless, architects eat by designing buildings, none of which are notable in this case. He has written some articles, necessary for a budding professor. He is merely an associate professor, not a full one. While his credentials are far beyond the average person's, I submit that they are not above the average professor's nor architect's! Student7 (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an associate of CUA, he may be ordinary in USA; but not in Bangladesh. And he is more an historian, critic and urban planner rather than a architect with plenty projects. As example he is re-planning the central business district of Chittagong, which is one of the most important places of the country. That's why he is a vital fact in Bangladesh. And he has worked as consultant to world renown architect Moshe Safdie, when Safdie was working in Chittagong. These proves his excellency. There are three more articles about his university batch-mates: Rafiq Azam, Enamul Karim Nirjhar, Mustapha Khalid Palash. Rossi101 (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)--User:Rossi101|Rossi101[reply]
- dude, you need to fix your signature so that it doesn't turn other people's posts orange... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of a record sufficient to meet WP:PROF -- nothing much in citations or news hits, well below the usual bar here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable academic. Contrary to what Rossi claims, the subject is also Non notable in Bangladesh (i.e., nothing more than a university professor or a professional architect). As for Rossi's claims about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are articles on many of these others because Rossi himself created them. Those architects are similarly non notable and fails WP:PROF or WP:N. --Ragib (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are the best contemporary architects from Bangladesh. I created the other stuffs, coz I am very much related to these matters. They all have won IAB Award, the highest architecture award in the country and JK Cement Award, highest in the Indian sub-continent. And, I also created articles out of architecture. --Rossi101 (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)User:Rossi101|Rossi101[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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? 17:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann-Kola[edit]

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

Unknown product trying to use wikipedia for a little advertising Quest09 (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough coverage by third-party sources to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Chris (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins: This AfD was created on 27 October; however, as far as I can tell it was never included on any AfD log until today. 15 November should be the effective AfD opening date. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:27, 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, —SW— ^converse 16:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 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, BusterD (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a brand of German cola soft drinks. Google News finds only three incidental mentions in German news sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 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? 17:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz-kola[edit]

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

No doubt that this product is not notable, unknown product of an unknown company Quest09 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that almost all the information in Google was produced from the company and is marketing material. The wikipedia article looks like a further attempt to market the Fritz-kola. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.195.138 (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins: This AfD was created on 27 October; however, as far as I can tell it was never included on any AfD log until today. 15 November should be the effective AfD opening date. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:27, 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, —SW— ^communicate 16:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 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, BusterD (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unlike the related Hermann-Kola AFD, for this one Google News finds what might be significant coverage in reliable sources.[22][23] Not sure that these stories establish an achievement worthy of encyclopedic notability, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 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. Suggest pursuing the possibility of a merge through other means. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballad of Boot Hill[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS no evidence that it has won any awards or was been ranked on national or significant music charts. No evidence that it was covered by other notable acts, this is unlikely ever to grow beyond a stub and a redirect to the album it is listed on was reverted by article creator. Mo ainm~Talk 20:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' as failing WP:NSONGS Stuartyeates (talk) 07:11, 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 - T P 16:04, 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, BusterD (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, but into Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. The article already contains evidence of significant coverage in several reliable sources, enough to meet WP:GNG. The song is apparently considered by the cited authorities as a key item in Johnny Cash's repertoire. The gunfight at the O.K. Corral has inspired a number of films, books, and songs, so if this should be redirected anywhere, it should be redirected and merged with that article rather than to a specific album. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 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. Sandstein 05:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hinterlands of Khuresh[edit]

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

My primary concern is the fact that this article lacks any sources whatsoever (since 2007!). Furthermore the subject of the article fails to fulfil the Notability requirements, more specifically WP:NRVE. Another policy that also applies is WP:NOTMANUAL (Wikipedia is not a sourcebook for a fictional setting). The subject is largely unimportant for the fictional setting itself, not being one of the major fictional political factions. The subject is already mentioned in a short and proper fashion in the article Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#The North, East, and South and that should be more than enough. This article is IMHO just another example of WP:Fancruft. Thank you for your attention. Flamarande (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 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, BusterD (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources let alone secondary sources (and thus fails to meet WP:GNG), and much of the text smacks of WP:OR. Sure, I might draw the same conclusions about the inspiration and history of the Hinterlands, but that's OR; do any secondary sources make these observations? Where is this coming from? - Sangrolu (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again, WP:GAMEGUIDE is invoked inappropriately by a nom for a gaming AfD; nothing in this article or the last Warhammer setting book AfD resembles a how-to guide for the game. Just because someone writes about a game doesn't make it a gameguide; inasmuch as fictional settings are written about for a game (and meet the notability guidelines), they can be in wikipedia just as much as Middle-earth, Pern, etc. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:33, 29 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 below is that there are insufficient sources to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dymaxion Groove[edit]

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

Article about an indie label. No reliable sources so fundamentally unverifiable. No evidence of notability. The only slight claim to notability is that it has a band which has members of a band that has a Wikipedia page. Prod was removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Shadowjams (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of a notable distributor. It purchased the last vinyl in print of David Tudor (from Lovely Music) and distributed around the mid-Atlantic. It supplies a lot of record stores with discs covering the history of electronic, musique concrete and new wave. It's lately taken off to try and support artists working in a more abstract area of music (some good pop too). rpirelli —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 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, BusterD (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable sources either. —SMALL JIM 16:17, 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. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Held Evans[edit]

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

created by a single purpose editor and looks overly self promotional. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. awards won are minor and has written nothing notable. LibStar (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evans meets both the GNG and WP:AUTHOR (3c), as evidenced by these exquisite sources—"A year of living biblically" from Toronto Star, "'Biblical Womanhood': A Year Of Living By The Book" from All Things Considered, "Exploring Bible's roles for women" from The Journal Gazette, "One woman's year of living biblically" from The Guardian, "A Year of Biblical Womanhood" from Slate, and "How to be a woman: playing it by The Book" from The Times of London. Goodvac (talk) 06:41, 23 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, BusterD (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Goodvac's sources make a strong showing of her notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Libstar. SL93 (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the only problem I see is that, ironically, it needs copyediting. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 29 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. Sandstein 05:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santhosh_Pandit[edit]

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

Proposing this article for deletion for the following reasons:

WP:BLP1E. Biography of a living person. Subject notable only for one event. An extract of the policy: "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article."
The 'event' that makes this person notable is an amateur film, produced, written, directed and acted-in by the very person who himself leased theatres to screen it as well.
The film was not noted for its artistic value, nor for its technical excellence, nor for its commercial success, but for its amateurishness, lack of artistic value, and the number of technical errors,^[1] and the way such a product was celebrated by the youth (storming the theatres with oaths and abuses^[2]).

Of-course 'the subject' is substance for news, and the article is well written too. But 'the subject' does not fit into the criterion to be included in an encyclopedia, and particularly Wikipedia.

Note that the article was deleted atleast twice before (1st deletion, 2nd deletion) and then recreated. And please note that the grounds of previous deletions were different (WP:FILMMAKER, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Notability (people)) from the ones raised now. This means that probably the issues raised earlier might stand corrected in the present article but the issues now raised were never addressed.

Notes:

^ Times of India
^ manoramaonline.com

Austria156 (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The person has enough notability now. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is not a judge of quality or morality. Its job is to state what is factual and to provide factual and unprejudiced information sought by people wanting to know about a particular topic/subject or person. The person on which this article is created has arisen to such level in terms of noteworthiness by now. ViswaPrabha വിശ്വപ്രഭ (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLP1E. Austria156 (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia need not look into the artistic merits of the movie. The fact is that the person is having widespread media coverage now and the kind of coverage is such that it does not seem like he will remain a low profile individual. The very fact that he was able to make an amateur film and get a theater release for that might make him a historically significant person in the context of Malayalam cinema - this is not a common thing in Malayalam film industry. Also, he is in the process of making further movies and it will be foolish to assume that they will go unnoticed by the media. Thus the contention that the person is a onetime wonder with no long-term notability is questionable -- Raziman T V (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Santhosh Pandit notable enough in Kerala and Malayalam film industry. He is not famous because of one event. His Youtube videos are very well watched and his first film is hit in Malayalam film industry. Wikipedia shouldn't check the quality of the film or the personality of a person. He is going to produce more films --Anoopan (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per comments above. --Axel™ (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Previous nomination for deletion was before his movie release which is the major event that gave him the notability. He is the major player in that major event which gives him notability. The fact that the event is major is evident from:

He tops all celebrated Malayalam movie stars (like Mohanlal and Mammootty) in Google searches for more than a month: http://www.google.co.in/trends?q=santhosh+pandit%2C+mohanlal%2C+mammootty&date=mtd&sort=0 (that too for a wide margin)
All major newspapers and channels covered him widely and specifically. Examples:
1. Asianet News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd-Tm8Ex3Xw
2. Manorama Channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzdnVkXefv0

Notability in the movie industry is not a reason for deletion. Being infamous is also not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia hosts entries for Al Capone, Hitler and Nathuram Godse as well. --Cibu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The person has enough notability. Whether he is infamous and all doesn't matter. If he did many areas of a film , that is not something that should be used against him. Sufficient number of references available in the article. The shooting of his second film is in progress also. Expect this to be the last proposal to delete this article.
Anish Viswa 00:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was the one who originally AFDed the article. See more here. The person is notable now. -- Tinu Cherian - 04:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep? -- Raziman T V (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The person was not having the notability when it suggested for deletion before. Now he has the notability. --Vaishak Kallore | വൈശാഖ്‌ കല്ലൂര്‍ (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this person is enough notable now. Notability could be of a good or bad reason.--Rameshng (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: Santoh is a good Entertainer, he is a multi talent person, he is enough notable. If Wikipedia delete this account, then shame on u.. How can u promote Ajmal Kasab's page and neglect this common man... Best Wishes Santosh Pandit.. u rock man .. Binu Kumar (Trivandrum) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.3.172 (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: As per the statistics put out by the Google Trends on Saturday, he stands second on the list of hot searches on Google, next only to Facebook in India. Link: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/showbiz/others/santosh-pandit-second-google-trends-list-483

Link: http://www.livenewsindia.com/regional-news/kerala-news/santosh-pandit-second-in-google-trends-list/

Best Wishes Santosh Pandit, we are with u..Carry on ..God will Bless u, if Wilkipedia wont ;-) ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notychiku (talk • contribs) 09:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - From Australia. Santhosh Pandit is very notable as a humorist film character among Kerala people living in Australia. I request an admin to close this discussion as Keep and protect the article from any future AFD nomination (if WP policy allows that). Thank you. 119.12.156.218 (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.104.203.73 (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pundit seems to be quite popular now. So why dont we wind up this discussion here and let the things rest for some time. Maybe the initiator of this proposal, or even somebody else, could come back later with a proposal again, maybe possibly in an year or so when Pundit would have fallen off to oblivion from the collective memories of us malayalees? That is, wouldn't time be a better judge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.141.126 (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The point 3 is not valid as even if the quality of the movie is considered, there are other points such as the business moves he made which is an eye opener to the industry which he works in. Showing the youngsters that determination and right moves can help the industry, while the veterans in the industry keeps blaming each other for the lack of quality theaters or limitations posed by the standards of exhibitors, itself is a reason to be included in wikipedia at least as a case study for the future. 27 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.17.115 (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has made a film that is all. To list in wiki somebody should achieve something. Why he has to be listed here??. Any informative purpose??. Looks like he is doing vandalism to wiki by listing himself to promote his film. Here he is using wiki also for his film publicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.157.78 (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pandits movie is mainly aimed for teenagers between the age groups 10-16. These thugs are mainly going to the theatres for howling and partying purpose only. They want the movie in such a way so that they howl as loud as they can and Pandit acknowledges all these abuses with a warm smile. He knows this technique that is the key of his notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.156.218 (talk)

Request for more time: From the initiator of the AfD: May I request the administrator who would review this discussion to please give some more time for the discussion, just one more week. I beleive it will probably bring in more views. And I think, whatever be the outcome of the discussion, a better participation would be in the interest of what we aim - a better Wikipedia. Thank you. Austria156 (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have listed this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kerala.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. soft deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FC Nelson[edit]

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

Amateur football club with no evidence of notability. Also copyvio from their website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FC Nelson is the merger of Nelson United, Metro, Tahuna and Nelson City to form the one superclub, plently of info available on www.google.co.nz to prove its notability. No different to Richmond Athletic and Nelson Suburbs which play in the same league in Nelson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.126.169 (talk) 18:37, 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, BusterD (talk) 13:32, 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 Keep. The consensus below is that the sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Doucet[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. 1 gnews hit [24]. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment to nominator There's only one result because you did not select the "archives". This search is the correct one and among 37 results, returns an in-depth article from France-Amérique, though I am unsure if it is reliable. Goodvac (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- apologies, but even with the proper archives search, there is mainly passing mentions and a complete lack of indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries. I've looked in more detail at the France-Amérique article and found that the last paragraph isn't about Doucet. This source is not as in-depth as I initially thought. Goodvac (talk) 05:17, 24 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, BusterD (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP if the sources mentioned are integrated in the article. McMarcoP (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources? Goodvac (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and how does this person meet WP:BIO or WP:ENT? LibStar (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arts of Fashion Foundation. There is a pile of non-inline references that either do not mention Doucet, or a re simply quotes or passing mentions. This is a local community paoper. This article features her as the primary subject. That's the most significant coverage I was able to find. I don;t think it's enough to establish a standalone article, but it can be merged to the foundation that she started. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has about a dozen references that give maybe 8 facts about her so she meets gng for a stub. She has an extensive interview in French. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep primarily because of the article in France-Amérique, a substantial article devoted to her in a national paper, though not one published in the English language. I consider that sufficient, supplemented by the other lesser mentions. We follow the sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that the sources are sufficient to meet the GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roll a D6[edit]

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

Irrilevant parody that has never been sent to retailers; all the information about it can be found in Like a G6. There may be sources but imo a four-lines page about a parody like this should be deleted after it's been merged into the main article. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 13:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information is in Like a G6 because someone did a copy and paste merge because they didn't like the article. The parody has been covered by CBS, Forbes and Greeley Tribune (via a lexus nexus hit). This article has already been attempted to be deleted several times because its not normal wikipedia fare. Indeed most things like this shouldn't be on wiki. However, this article seems to have enough sources. I will run another Lexus-nexus search tonight to look for more sources --Guerillero | My Talk 17:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more links: Greeley Tribune (mentioned above), Reverb (part of the Denver Post), Ology (an online magazine) --Guerillero | My Talk 18:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the WP:GNG requirements, as it has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Torchiest. BOZ (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has four reliable third party sources, that's sadly more than average for Wikipedia, and it meets the GNG in spades. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In part because AfD should be for deletion and even the nominator suggests merging the content rather than deleting. Also, meets GNG. (Note: I came here after reading Guerillero's RfA.) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 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 Speedy delete g11, ad for selfpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vril Codex (Novel)[edit]

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

Book that fails WP:GNG. No third-party sources that I could find to show notability. Article's creator (who has the same name as the book's author) removed PROD tag. First Light (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 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. Sandstein 05:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bangura's Vulture Paradigm[edit]

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

Neologism (it claims to be "a new postulate" and has no relevant google hits for "vulture paradigm" -wiki). Major conflict of interest (the article's author appears to be Prof. Bangura, who was cited in the first paragraph of the original version of the article). Original research. Fails WP:COI, WP:NEO, WP:GNG, WP:OR andy (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research by a user whose editing of Wikipedia consists entirely of attempts to use it to publish his/her own work. (The user has, in fact stated that their contributions are "original works". I will explain on their talk page that this is not acceptable.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. Sparthorse (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 28 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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Marines[edit]

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

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

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

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

For notability reasons, I'm proposing this article for deletion. The news coverage is anecdotal and is mainly about their facebook page. I feel like this is highly promotional and this group doesn't really do anything. 완젬스 (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/undecided. I'm sort of ambivalent about the material. I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I think it'd be a little hasty to completely delete this. WP:CRYSTAL works both ways- we don't know if it'll become more notable and get more sources, but then we can't know that it won't since it's still relatively new. If it is deleted then it might be worth userfying the material as well as redirecting the term to OWS, to be separated once the editor has more sources. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I see no cogent argument for the deletion of an article explaining the factual existence of a organization that indubitably exists. It has an active following close to 20,000 individual people and is not of negligible size which is the ONLY cogent argument against this articles existence. Worries about it being used for advertising purposes can be mitigated, precluding deletion as a reasonable option. --98.222.56.230 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I 'follow' Occupy Marines on Twitter, and have become better informed for it. There is no good reason to delete their Wikipedia page. Patriotism should be lauded. Not scrutinized to the point of tedium.— 66.245.255.96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:25, 24 November 2011‎ (UTC).[reply]

OccupyMarines has been more effective with organization within the movement than the original OWS core that originally began the movement in Manhattan, New York. The groups was instrumental in the identification of the ESU Scott Bergstresser, the officer responsible for shooting Veteran Scott Olsen and throwing a grenade into a group of seven to 10 demonstrators in Oakland, California. This group has worked with 'occupy' groups in organization, especially in networking with other 'occupy' groups nationwide. The group is responsible for organizing, implementing, and guiding the development of other 'occupy' military groups such as Army, Navy, and Air force. The groups holds facebook and twitter accounts, and maintains a website that engages the movement offering inspiration, information regarding national/international politics, information on other events occurring within occupy groups across America and internationally which are largely invisible considering the heavily censored mainstream media such as Fox News and CNN. Those ignorant to what the group as actually accomplished within such short period of time should refrain from using big words and spend more time actually becoming well informed. This site should honor the response and the sacrifice the group has endured throughout the movement and its development. This site should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OccupyMARINES (talk • contribs) 10:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC) — OccupyMARINES (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We were asked today by a Naysayer to explain what OccupyMARINES are doing for OWS. We replied with a more accurate question to ask is what OccupyMARINES are not doing. OccupyMARINES are not sitting on our asses watching the 1% rip out the heart of America.America Dialed 911 and We Stood Up, We Answered America’s Call.We Have watched since September 17th this wondrous event unfold. We watched as this small demonstration took hold of the world and we quickly understood that they are not going away. So we listened more.We listened to the demonstrators, we listened to the public respond and observed how quickly divided Americans’ were becoming. How these knucklehead Naysayers, day after day discredit what OWS is doing. Well Nay-Sayers OccupyMARINES have a message for you. Continue sitting on your asses while the 1% laugh at you, lie to you, tell you to shut your soup coolers and mind your own business. Go ahead and quibble Naysayers while MARINES once again stand up for the future of America. And when the day comes, when OWS hits history books across the world, and we alongside them; that day when someone asks you if you were there Nay-Sayers you are going to say: “No, I was to scared, I did not have the balls to fight for my country. I did not have the courage to confront the problems eroding America.”“But I did feel confident enough to attack those brave souls that did stand up for America. I did fight to disregard their message.” Tell Them that when asked Naysayers, afterwards, return to your life remembering that you are insignificant to history. Do not worry Naysayers, the MARINES have your back….AGAIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OccupyMARINES (talk • contribs) 11:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC) — OccupyMARINES (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Undecided for the moment~~ -- Keep. This article needs more names. Right now, it looks like a couple of former Marines (or two of the rare "ex-Marines") with a web page and facebook and twitter accounts. One of them left with an administrative discharge. The other is suspected of embellishing his military record to imply he had seen combat. That doesn't mean it's not notable, but we need more names for this to qualify as notable. -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Amended to Keep. Still has the same issues but some people like it. We can revisit if nothing comes of the group. -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - here's two more sources than already in article (I just saw a live video feed interview with them with international audience asking questions, myself from UK, and I wanted to find out more about them) http://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-marines-shamar-thomas-2011-10 and http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/882-us-marine-rages-at-police-brutality-against-occupy-wall-street-protesters -- EverSince (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they have 501(c)(3) status helps but it's still just the same two guys. Stopwar.co.uk isn't exactly a neutral source -- but they're not really against the war either (they're just on the other side). I'll stay undecided for now. -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the purpose of your comment on my statement is, or the relevance for notability of whether a publication is itself neutral, or the strange comment about some org being 'on the other side'... EverSince (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were two points: 1) not every 501(c)(3) is notable; and 2) stopwar.co.uk's admiration doesn't make them notable. It still comes down to the nature of it. Here's what's required: WP:ORG. Is this more than than just two guys with a website? -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your first point does not relate to my statement so please add it to your own if you want. Regarding 2), please keep your personal political views to yourself and focus on the process of evaluating sources to establish notability of coverage as outlined also in Wikipedia:Notability which I did not need reminding of thank you. EverSince (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My personal views don't affect whether or not I think something is notable.

It still comes down to my question: Is this more than than just two guys with a website? -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so you shouldn't have disrupted my statement with your political opinions and your personal framing of the issue (which is actually about the extent and nature of independent coverage) EverSince (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as also http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20124777/semper-fi-non-active-marines-called-to-occupy/ EverSince (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good source of the same singular event but that's still just one of the same two guys running a website. -- Randy2063 (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you misrepresent the article - as can be seen it describes an event involving a marine but then moves on to "The group Occupy Marines says...". Again stop trying to reframe my statement as if the issue is about the number of people comprising OccupyMarines - that is relevant to the description that should be given in the article, not whether the article should exist which is dependent on the extent and (procedural-) quality of publications covering it (notability). EverSince (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw it appears that the OccupyMarines user account has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia apparently because the name is "related to a "real-world" group or organization" EverSince (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This sort of coverage [25], and that in the article and linked above, confirms to me that this is a notable and historically significant aspect of Occupy, and that to not properly cover it in WP would leave our treatment of this very important movement lacking. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's hard to say if this one passes GNG or not. The sources aren't the best (I don't think dailykos passes WP:RS), and it's non-active duty with a facebook page. On the other hand, some facebook movements become notable, and this one may also grow. FWIW I don't see any reason to delete it yet. Eventually the occupy movement will simmer down, and if this group hasn't done anything, they can revisit AFD. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this? - this group is real. They have built a following, and are continuing to build. What could the person requesting this article deletion possibly be afraid of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.186.55 (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC) — 207.224.186.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Every redneck city has a Chamber of Commerce authored booster page on WP and no complaints. WP is about marketing capitalist crap. It cannot handle sensitive issues of political importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.133.69 (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC) — 74.68.133.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I read the article about Occupy Marines on businessinsider.com, which i found both informative and intriguing. Soon after I started following the group on Facebook and Twitter, and I've found Occupy Marines to be one of the best sources for info on the Occupy movement. I'm shocked by the amount of info they disseminate on the subject (and I've never been a real fan of the Marines).— 184.152.73.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:33, 26 November 2011‎ (UTC).

I am a former Marine. I agree with the above posters that this page should not be deleted, for the same reasons, especially the amount of information Occupy Marines provides. NATruthStudent (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)— NATruthStudent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. This AfD has nothing to do with silencing anyone or supporting any sort of regime. Lately there have been a lot of groups adding OWS themed pages to Wikipedia. Some have had enough coverage to warrant a page. Some have not. While I believe that OM could potentially get this and that it's a little too soon to delete the page, I do not believe that anyone nominated this in bad faith. Not everything is a conspiracy, so please do not throw about accusations along the lines of "what are they afraid of?". It does not accomplish anything, nor does it show proof as to why this page should remain. AfD do not work that way. Also, the argument "other stuff exists" does not count as an argument to keep the page. Saying that you find an article or page helpful does not count as a vote in its favor either. (See WP:ITSUSEFUL.) I do want to commend people for their passion about the subject, but also be aware that deletion discussions are not decided on a vote. Coming onto Wikipedia just to comment on this deletion discussion will not accomplish much unless you can back it up with valid reasons to keep it that are covered under the general notability guidelines. (WP:GNG) I've seen it happen where there's been more "keep" statements than "delete" ones, but an article was still deleted because the "keep" statements could not give valid reasons to keep the article. I'm not trying to be incendiary, just making sure that everyone coming on here knows how AfD works. I notice that there's a lot of new faces. Again, the proposed deletion of the page was not done to silence anyone and believe it or not, most of the OWS themed groups that have come up for deletion have actually survived the process because of people chipping in to prove notability enough to warrant saving it, so it's not like Wikipedia itself is trying to silence anyone or can't handle political events. Please be careful about how you phrase your arguments because just coming on and making statements like that will not accomplish anything as far as AfD goes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Well regarding quality of arguments it's a shame you didn't intervene earlier to warn the editor above who was just throwing out his own political biases and judgements of the group while I was simply providing valid sources showing notability. Also if you actually look at the talk page of the editor who proposed deletion it does seem to show a gripe against Occupy so I'm not sure why you're so blindly defending Wikipedia procedures. EverSince (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely that the page SHOULD NOT be deleted. If Wikipedia wants to assure fair and equal distribution of informative and valid information, then leaving it up would do JUST that. If not for the OccupyMarines wikipedia page, THIS Iraq war veteran (serving 2 years in Baghdad and 6 months in Kandahar) would not have found information on fellow vets supporting the movement. IF this website wants to continue with a reputation of enlightening the masses then I would suggest you take a close look at how their support is growing through its FB page and thru a simple google of the Occupy Marines movement. Otherwise, you are all just as bad if not WORSE than the pathetic political leaders that are screwing you and all your future unborn childrens lives over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngryUScitizen76 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would look above, you'd notice that I was the first to suggest that this should be kept. The problem with a lot of the OWS fringe pages is that there's been a rush to include every group that forms. While it's great that people are forming to voice their opinions, Wikipedia is not a soap box and in order to remain on here the page needs to have reliable sources. This is the way it's always been on Wikipedia and again, these policies have actually saved a good chunk of the more well sourced fringe OWS groups out there. (Like I said, many of the Occupy pages usually pass AfD because eventually people find sources.) Again, Wikipedia is not a soap box and it's not a place to advertise for various groups. I just wish that people would turn this energy out towards finding sources for this article. It is not a suppression of opinions, especially since the original article creator has the option to userfy the article, meaning that he or she could keep it on their user page and work on it until it has enough sources to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If one of the people coming on here to voice their opinion wants to do this in place of the article creator, I have no problem with that. The issue is that no matter how noble a group's intention are or how vocal its supporters are, it still has to follow the same notability guidelines that every other article has to pass to get an article on here. Much like OWS protesters say that certain groups don't deserve special treatment, we believe the same thing: no group should get special treatment and everyone should have to follow the rules of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I feel that the protection of free speech and the political neutrality of WP is more important than the few bits this entry takes up. It could serve someone trying to research the Occupy movement and hurts no one. It's removal would be a disturbing sign that WP is engaging in political activity and suppression of opinions. I say keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.109.30 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody asked, "Why delete this?" It's a good question. Look at the article itself. There are only two names associated with it, Scott Olsen and Shamar Thomas. And yet this article doesn't even specifically say that they're members. We can only infer that they are. Somebody needs to clear that up ASAP.

There are plenty of organizations that don't get WP articles about them. I can think of one in particular that is also on WP's spam list, which means we can't even cite them as references or external links.

If you want to keep this article, and they're a noteworthy organization, then please put some of your efforts into turning the article itself into more than an advertisement for a fringe website that will be gone after the fringe moves on. Find sources that tell us who they actually are.

I'm still on the fence on this one. Who's their leader? Who's their press secretary? Who's their treasurer? Got a legitimate source? Then edit it into the article. Get us some more names and I'll be more than satisfied.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since some people here may be affiliated with the "organization" I'll note that it may be worthwhile putting some of the needed leadership information on the website, which might then be referenced. It may not be sufficient for fully establishing noteworthiness but it will add to the material we have now.

At the moment, they appear to be anonymous. An anonymous blog can be noteworthy enough for an article, but not one that's only been around for a month, and probably won't make it through winter. Be serious, folks.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl179, again, I ask why are you lecturing at those making a case for the article, and not advising those such as Randy2063 who is continually just throwing out personal judgements of the group and making characterizations of it that have nothing to do with the issue - which is whether the extent of coverage in reliable independent sources is enough to establish noteworthiness. Randy2063 please stay on topic instead of posting your own original research. EverSince (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research? I'm (a) citing their own website; and (b) asking that others find more sources about who these people are. That's not a merely personal judgment.

This is an anonymous group that's had a website for a little over a month. That's observation, not a personal judgment.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline is clear that the issue is whether the group has been noted and discussed by multiple independent secondary sources, several of which have now been provided ("Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability"). According to the guideline, their self-published material is potentially relevant for the article content after that. But your characterization of that has been shown to be unreliable anyway - you keep saying it's "just a website", which is inaccurate because there is also an associated facebook group (which the deletion proposal was complaining about along with the obviously prejudiced claim that "this group doesn't really do anything") plus a twitter feed and a petition aimed at various govt officials, and I don't know what other activities online or offline. And you kept saying it's just two guys but now you're complaining they're anonymous (like anonymous (group) in that respect then) but in either case the issue is independent secondary sources establishing notability as a group. EverSince (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a website and a facebook page and a twitter account. I've already noted that. Maybe they have their own stationery, too.

Yes, I did say it's just two guys but I thought they were willing to be known as affiliated with the "organization." They probably are the group but their website doesn't say that.

"Anonymous (group)" is not a 501(c)(3). "Occupy Marines" is. They're not supposed to be anonymous.

After looking at WP:GNG, I think user:Cox wasan is right. But I'm really not asking for much.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again you're distracting away from the issue of the demonstrated notability in multiple published national sources, to your speculation and denigration of the details of the group, which are matters for an article not a deletion proposal. So, great argument when it comes down to it - Cox wasan: 'fails notability for GNG' (no reason given & can't even be bothered to spell out the jargon for non-wikipedianites), Randy2063: 'I think Cox wasan is right'. EverSince (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's right. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail... You do have some references but they don't tell us who these people are -- and I don't mean just their names. This article isn't a stub anymore, and it still doesn't have much to say. The "See also" section is almost half of it.

Once again, I'm not asking for much. I'd just like some hard information so that when Wikipedia is used as a link for 501(c)(3) fundraising appeals, the readers will have some names on record. They've only had a domain name since October 19th.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typical tactic of some Wikipedianites to cite policies to try and show they're talking from authority while simultaneously misrepresenting it for their own ends. The guideline does NOT specify what particular details have to be provided, it just says there has to be enough content to base a substantive amount of content on. And NOWHERE does it say anything about 501(c)(3) status needing to be discussed, you're simply making that up. Wikipedia is collaborative and not about you and what you would personally like others to find for you (see WP:OWN). EverSince (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. I didn't say 501(c)(3) status is needed. If you'll recall, I had said that it helps here. The source says they're working on it, which works in favor of a keep. That's about the only thing they have going for them.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for GNG. --Cox wasan (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another independent published article, dated 11th November 2011 in The Nation periodical, http://www.thenation.com/article/164553/veterans-occupy-wall-street The relevant section: "Since then, the visibility of veterans and veteran organizations at Occupy events around the country has grown, becoming more persistent and evident to both protesters and organizers. After witnessing the police brutality in New York earlier this month, a group of veterans calling themselves Occupy Marines pledged its support to the Occupy Wall Street movement. “As veterans we were led to believe [that] our service was to protect America’s way of life abroad,” a spokesperson of the organization explains, “We did not want to believe that our presence in the Middle East was to ensure an oil supply, or to deepen the pockets of the financial elites. Many…lost their life out there, and the suggestion that their sacrifice was for profits, or oil, is unbearable. [That is why] we came forward to protect these demonstrators’ ability to express their constitutional First Amendment right.” EverSince (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pledge of support but not news of what they've already done.

If they said that they have already been providing security (like the 501st Legion at SF conventions) then that would be something notable. There are better examples but I didn't want to venture into past history.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again please stop putting your interpretation of guidelines and sources over the top of everything. That is not how notability is defined in the guidelines. In any case it's not just a pledge of support it's detail on the rationale given by the group as reported in a national publication as you can well see yourself. EverSince (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability includes "significant coverage." Apparently, they've had enough significant coverage to write a tiny stub, most of which is a boastful mission statement apparently from their facebook page.

But since you obviously like it. I'm not going to vote it down.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I said nothing about that either way. EverSince (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page contains factual information about what they have done, what they are doing, and what they intend to do. They are an organization worthy of a wiki entry. I believe the opposition to this entry is entirely due to a political dislike of the occupation movement itself. To delete this entry with such haste defeats the purpose of the wiki in the first place. Therefore I vote to keep the entry. Syrmopoulos (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of information. There is information about people, places and things. If OccupyMARINES exists there is a purpose for a page of any information on it. The early age of the entry would also bring to question the quickness on considering deletion since it has not had ample time to have more of the community enter date and facts onto it. Smegarock —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - this online group emerged in the aftermath of Scott Olson being shot in the head with a tear gas cannister during an #OccupyWallStreet protest in Oakland. OccupyMarines has over 8,700 followers on Twitter. OccupyMarines exists as a legitimate entity despite 완젬스 feelings the group is 'highly promotional and this group doesn't really do anything'. Proper Disclosure: I follow @occupymarines on twitter. παράδοξος (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" - there is no reason to delete this page - I follow @occupymarines on Twitter as well - as I feel they provide necessary insight into news topics that are unfolding quicker than conventional media can follow. The opinions they express may be distasteful to some, but this is no reason to have their voice snuffed out here. To delete their entry would be a strike against the inclusive nature of Wikipedia. Signed missshevaughn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missshevaughn (talk • contribs) 06:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't usually comment like this on other people's arguments, but all 4 of the immediately above arguments & some above are based on ITEXISTS, which is a non -argument,. The inclusive nature of wikipedia even as I would have it does not quite go so far as to include everything that exists in the universe DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improving article - A number of editors have posted potential references on this discussion page. If these references say something not covered in the article and if they are reliable secondary sources (such as a newspaper, not a blog) then it would improve the article if the additional information and references were added to the article. If an editor is new to Wikipedia and not quite sure how to add the information, then post your reference and basic points on the article's talk page Talk:Occupy_Marines. Other more experienced editors will be happy to help out.--Nowa (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject's notability is clear (references speak for themselves), the "promotional" or not-neutral article's tone could be settled through regular editing.--Cavarrone (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From a mere user, one small comment: I came to this page to learn something about OccupyMarines. And I did. I'd been reading their Facebook posts for a couple weeks, and once I get interested in something I usually look it up in wikipedia. The astonishing breadth of wikipedia is what makes it such a frequent destination for me. BTW, I'm ignorant of wikipedia deletion policies, but I hope they are strongly biased toward maintaining the broadest of historical records - if wikipedia doesn't, who will? Rad314 (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The notability of Occupy Marines is clear. If the page has room for improvement, well that's how Wikipedia pages evolve. There is no legitimate basis to suggest removal. Holzman-Tweed (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are a real thing, they get coverage, and are thus notable. Dream Focus 23:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem to be a real existing thing, with sufficient coverage to easilly pass GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:33, 30 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jana gana mana chhattisgarh[edit]

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

uncited content, seems to be WP:OR and WP:ESSAY ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*delete As the anthem of a large sub-national entity, there's no reason why this song shouldn't have an article, like the US State Songs, but in it's current form it can't stay WP:OR, unreferenced, badly written. Happy to change "vote" if things improve.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- though some info can be added to Jana Gana Mana pageHardyraj (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current content is unsuitable for merging because the material is both unreferenced, and does not adhere to a neutral point of view. As far as I can tell from the current article, Chhattisgarh has mandated the playing of Jana Gana Mana at movie theatres. Tnat information (sourced to a reliable source) could be added to the Jana Gana Mana article, but none of the material we have would be useful in a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Withdrawing previous delete, I obviously misunderstood the topic, although that tells you something about the clarity of the article itself. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is just a random essay about jana gana mana use in Chattisgarh. Referenced facts can be added to the anthem article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:38, 25 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. causa sui (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Fife (Captain Billy Fife)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No significant coverage. Appears to be family history and list of movements but no indication of any significant achievements or widely recognised contribution to historical events. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- With regrets. Fascinating unencyclopedic WP:OR attested to by the author's five I's 'I have outlined the true facts...', 'I will look at the facts...' 'I would like to state...', 'I agree that...', and 'I would ask you to think... (excepting the quote); no claim of coverage in books or WP:RS, and I was not able to locate any, either. Dru of Id (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By the article's own admission, there is a dispute over they key point in this article, mainly which William Fife fought as a Captain in the American civil war. There might be a place for an article that covers all the points of view expressed in reliable sources (if this person's notability can be established), but there is certainly not a place for an article whose purpose is to advance a disputed point of view. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete (it would be nice if there was some form of genealogy wiki we could transfer this stuff to, though). I proposed this for deletion back in September, and then pulled the PROD while I sent it to various projects for feedback. The discussions didn't seem favourable, but I forgot to renominate it! Thanks for catching it... Shimgray | talk | 16:36, 27 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 G11 anyway, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet speed test[edit]

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

Would require a significant rewrite to become encyclopaedic. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 09:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No reason to delete has been provided. AFD is not cleanup or an article rewriting service. Warden (talk) 09:51, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gut origin of chronic diseases[edit]

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

Declined prod some sources added but previous concerns still remain. The article is about a theory derived from only one primary source. Unlikely to meet meet WP:GNG, in that there are no third-party sources which discuss this scientific theory. Although, the subject is likely notable, the theory (which this article is about) is primary research. France3470 (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially a fringe medical theory (that a wide variety of chronic diseases are caused by disturbances in the gut flora). The paper that is the article's sole source was published in a journal with an impact factor under 3 (and for which we have no article) and has received only a sole citation in Scopus (to a review that itself has no citations). If the author had notability sufficient for a page, this might warrant a redirect, but as that's not the case... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fringe OR. Wikipedia should be careful not to have medical information on its pages that may mislead. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - interesting, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, and this is not notable enough to include as a fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting stuff but not notable in and of itself. Might be the start to some new thinking in microbiology but until it is, it's not needed here. N^oformation ^Talk 21:08, 29 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 Introduction to quantum mechanics. There's consensus that we do not need yet another article on this topic. Sandstein 05:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basic concepts of quantum mechanics[edit]

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

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics include all information here. It looks like the duplicate of that page. So i think this page should be deleted. SavinSav (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that the Basic Concepts article is a simplified version of the Introduction article, in addition to not using any equations. I can see that a user who is a total physics novice, or who is put off by the appearance of equations might prefer the Basic Concepts version rather than the Introduction version, but I am not sure if we can support 2 versions of the same thing. I might delete the Basic Concepts and edit the Introduction to be simpler; the reader does not need to see the actual formulas Bohr used or know the details of the Rydberg formula and so on. Other, more advanced articles cover these things. --Marjaliisa (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Introduction to quantum mechanics. They may be covering the same ground but there's no reason to delete either of them as the article titles are useful for navigation and it is our editing policy to preserve the edit history. Warden (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Useful for those who fear mathematics. Incidentally, the definition given for "field" is incorrect (for this subject). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep—Specifically for those who can't deal with mathematics. The math in the senior article on quantum mechanics is far over the head of the inquiring high school student—or anyone else who is not a math of physics student at the college level. The reader with at least a high school knowledge of math does deserve to be offered as much as possible to enable understanding of this crucial topic, so the Introduction to quantum mechanics should not be dumbed down. On the other hand, there are frequently readers who object to being subjected to the difficulty of the subject. They may find a popularization of the subject enough to give them some idea of what quantum mechanics is talking about. The requirement for the Basic concepts article would then be to make sure that it does not contain misleading statements. (Einstein could write that kind of thing, but only because he knew all of the landmines he had to step around.)P0M (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions:

Might it be better to merge this article with Wikipedia simple? The QM article there has more math than this one does.
Is this article likely to be found by someone who needs a simpler introduction? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Simple English articles are for people who are learning English, not for people who are necessarily short on math skills.

Maybe it should be given a special "math-free zone" medallion.

There is a general problem in English Wikipedia with articles that are "encyclopedic" but only work for readers who already pretty much understand what is being said. The article on the Plank constant just got a critique from a social scientist who read the lead paragraphs and still did not have any idea what that constant was all about. It's bad enough when an inquiring high school student cannot understand an article on a fundamental science issue, but when a social scientist cannot understand it either then it is even more clear that we all need to decide who the intended audience is.

Writing simply enough for high school students to understand has sometimes prompted outrage from more highly educated readers who feel they are being talked down to. Writing tersely enough to satisfy those who are professionals in a field is likely to leave all other readers feeling left out.

If all science article writers had the skill of Einstein they could write simply without laying landmines for readers just beginning their study of a question. But I think that even Einstein would have problems mixing higher math with his popularizations. Ordinary writers are lucky if they can handle a single level.

One of the really frustrating things about these three articles is that there are regular attempts to redo things, not because of any issue of validity of content, but because someone feels that an article should be more or less technical than it is. This kind of instability can result in the degradation of an article over time. I just compared one topic of the Uncertainty principle article and discovered that the current content is inferior to an explication that was given within a couple months of the article's being started nearly ten years ago.

I would prefer to keep things stable, and doing so requires keeping all three articles.P0M (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely correct to raise the issue of the level of expertise needed to understand a technical article. Too many are written by experts for experts and make insufficient attempt to introduce a less expert reader to the subject. The situation is even worse in mathematics. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It was news to me that there was even an Introduction to quantum mechanics, let alone an even more basic article. Now I find that articles with simpler introductions have Category:Articles with separate introductions and the template {{see introduction}}, as well as the hidden Category:Introduction articles (I don't understand why it is hidden). I think that there are some good issues being raised here that should really be addressed at a broader level. If a "Basic concepts of" article is needed for QM, it is probably needed for many other top-importance articles, and there should be a similar support mechanism. I am contacting some relevant wikiprojects. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Introduction to quantum mechanics. I frankly think it silly to have two — let alone three — versions of a given article. If Quantum mechanics has a poorly written introduction, it should be reworked, not split into multiple versions. ~ Lhynard (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Both Quantum mechanics and Introduction to quantum mechanics, at approximately 9000 words each, are at the upper end of the length recommended at Wikipedia:Article size. We need to be careful that any proposed merge doesn't result in a monstrously long article. Jowa fan (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be a problem because Basic concepts of quantum mechanics is pretty much an excerpt from Introduction to quantum mechanics. If they are merged, the real question would be what level to make the combined article. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until you get more deeply into this issue it will be difficult to understand how much complexity is involved. No math is one level. High school math is another level. But the math that is used professionally goes into stuff that was invented to deal with the new physics. It's not anything that a student with a year or two as a math major in college can deal with. The "Example" section of the simple English version was once almost the first thing the reader hit after a short history. (See http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_mechanics&oldid=1408264). There is no way to get from "no math" to that stuff in one article. Originally I was opposed to the "Basic" article, but it seems to make for stability by satisfying the "afraid of math" people.P0M (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are some policy guidelines in Introduction to ... articles. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The guideline RockMagnetist has pointed out is pretty clear; a certain amount of content forking is allowable under special circumstances, but as Lhynard says it's hard to imagine that these circumstances could ever justify three version of an article. To the folks who say that we need a math-free version of the article I'd respond that quantum mechanics is inherently mathematical; if you think you understand it without knowing math then you're fooling yourself and an article that pretends to explain it without math is just feeding the illusion. There are some things that can be said about quantum mechanics that don't require math, such as what kinds of results are produced and enough of what some of the concepts are to get the jokes in the Big Bang Theory sitcom, but this can easily be put into the article lead and first couple of sections of an article. But this kind of "popular" explanation of a science like quantum mechanics really has no more scientific validity than an explanation of how a transporter or a warp drive works. I'm not going as far to say Merge or Delete though because I feel it would be rather pointless. There is a tendency at Wikipedia for articles to be "by graduate students for graduate students", and even articles that start out as well written for a general audience eventually have jargon added by editors who don't understand the difficulties of writing for about technical subjects for nontechnical people. So there is a further tendency to create nontechnical versions of these articles rather than attempt to repair the problems in the existing articles. So there are systemic reasons why this article was created and if it is merged or deleted it will only be a matter of time before someone creates a similar article. Maybe when the fourth or fifth version of the article is created the systemic issues will start to be addressed.--RDBury (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good points. One further observation: It is always desirable to go from the concrete to the abstract. For instance, a graph showing how classical physics predicted the levels of energy produced for each frequency of a black-body radiator, vs. how the curve really looks makes it clear just how huge the problem was. Adding the Wein approximation and the Planck law results will let readers understand how big an improvement quantum mechanics made. Then the reader will be able to accept the idea that some relatively complicated math was needed to get the right curve, and they will also probably be calm about skipping over the equations if they don't care to really investigate them.P0M (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Introduction to quantum mechanics – rationale here. ― A. di M. 16:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with History of quantum mechanics. This idea was proposed in the previous AfD, and it makes sense. This article is mostly a history of quantum mechanics, and it is better written than History of quantum mechanics. The latter has a short essay followed by an enormous timeline that is more detailed than the "main" Timeline of quantum mechanics. Of course, before performing any such merge, the editors of those pages should be informed of the debate. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That idea sounds very good to me.P0M (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Introduction to quantum mechanics. Our "introduction" category is very useful for beginners and should be strengthened. If there is a way of making the current "introduction" even more accessible, we should pursue this. In fact, many more articles should have "introductions". Probably many wiki contributors are not aware of this possibility. Is there any way of making it known more widely? Tkuvho (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above about related categories and templates. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there even any material in it that isn't in Introduction to quantum mechanics? From what I can see only the practical uses section. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge and redirect into the Intro article. There's especially nice shortcuts and simpler re-wordings. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carefully merge. There's quite interesting discussion going on at the article talk-pages, and at WT:PHYSICS. It is often a lot harder to write something simple than to write something at a more sophisticated level one might personally feel most comfortable with. Three articles is definitely too many. But there is a lot to be said for keeping material as short and as simple as possible, but with very visible links to more detail. Unfortunately, the all-too-easy tendency over time is for articles to get longer and more inclusive, at the direct expense of succinctness and easy navigation. Succinctness and navigability is hard to achieve, and even harder to maintain. Therefore, by all means merge, but I suggest aim to make the result as far as possible more like this article Basic concepts of quantum mechanics than like Introduction to quantum mechanics. At every step, the question should be: Can we make this our introductory front-line article shorter? For each fact and each detail that might be added, can we rather leave it to a (well-signposted) alternative second-line article instead. The more the final merged article ends up looking like this article, the better.

There is also a very interesting suggestion at WT:PHYSICS that that merged article should be what Quantum mechanics directs to, with as much of the current QM article as possible also broken out into second-line spin-out articles. I think that has a lot to be said for it, as a whole-article level application of WP:TECHNICAL. But to make it work, that top-line article really will be as simple and as navigable as possible -- closer to the current "Basic concepts" article than to the current "Introduction" article. Jheald (talk) 17:14, 30 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 - nomination withdrawn after conversion to DAB (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Share bazaar[edit]

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

Per WP:DICTIONARY Suraj T 06:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I withdraw my nomination. No point in wasting time on discussing this one. The dab page is good to go now. Suraj T 03:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Suraj T 06:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query—How is this not a valid dab page, per WP:TWODABS? It seems that the only alternative to this page is to put hatnotes on two of the three disambiguated pages. I'm not opposed per se, I'm just curious about how having this page is worse than putting in two hatnotes, given that this seems to be a valid search phrase for a number of different things.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I gone ahead and converted the page into a dab per Alf's suggestion above. I think this solves the concerns that it is unsuitable as an article. All that is left to be done is for Share Bazaar to be moved to Share Bazaar (film) with Share Bazaar changed to a redirect to the dab. France3470 (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's just right now as a dab. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as disambiguation page. Hardyraj (talk) 15:45, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delmas Campbell[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG. Secondary school headmaster. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Google news search returned articles unrelated to the subject. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 05:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Got about 270 hits, almost all announcements that he had been appointed as Headmaster. Doesn't appear to be notable.--Marjaliisa (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Great guy, I'm sure, but there is no basis to assert notability. McMarcoP (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Secondary school headmaster is not one of the WP:PROF criteria, so we have to rely on WP:GNG instead, but Google news archive turned up nothing about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 28 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 Joe Lipari#career. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Job (short film)[edit]

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

Notability. No claims that meet WP:NFILM, and absolutely zero gnews hits (searching on "Dream Job" "Dave Hill"). Nat Gertler (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect, per Schmidt. SPA creates this article and couple of related ones for director and actors. Web searches find primary sources and social media, nothing substantive and WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joe Lipari#career where it is already mentioned in relationship to his work. Short films have a very tough time showing notability meriting a separate article and this film is no exception. We can at least send readers to the one place where it makes sense to have a contextual mention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect a film by a notable individual that fails WP:NFILM, thus redirect to the filmmaker. -- Irn (talk) 20:02, 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 Withdrawn - Nominator withdrew the improper AfD. (non-admin closure) —SW— ^gab 20:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armadillomon[edit]

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

WP:IINFO Merge into existing article on digimon Soxwon (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - AfD is not the correct venue for seeking a merge. Merges can be discussed on the article's talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep This is the place to discuss deletions, not mergers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:33, 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. The rest of this batch of Digimon AFDs have been closed, mostly as no consensus. This one got left behind, and was lonely. Same comments about taking up the issue boldly or in other venues apply here. Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkmon[edit]

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

WP:IINFO Merge into existing article on digimon Soxwon (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - (a) AfD is not the appropriate forum to seek a merge; this should be done on the article's talk page. (b) WP:IINFO is not a sufficiently detailed reason to justify a page deletion; bereft of context it amounts to "I don't like it". - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merge requests can be made by going to WP:MERGE#Proposing_a_merger, not AfD (it's called Articles for deletion). →Σ τ c. 07:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Try RM or just being bold and making the merge Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gatomon[edit]

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

WP:IINFO Merge into existing article on digimon Soxwon (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - (a) AfD is not the appropriate forum to seek a merge; this should be done on the article's talk page. (b) WP:IINFO is not a sufficiently detailed reason to justify a page deletion; bereft of context it amounts to "I don't like it". - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merge requests can be made by going to WP:MERGE#Proposing_a_merger, not AfD (it's called Articles for deletion). →Σ τ c. 07:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veemon[edit]

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

WP:IINFO Should be merged into existing article on digimon Soxwon (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - (a) AfD is not the appropriate forum to seek a merge; this should be done on the article's talk page. (b) WP:IINFO is not a sufficiently detailed reason to justify a page deletion; bereft of context it amounts to "I don't like it". - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seriously indiscriminate per WP:NOT and above all things, it may violate the guideline on our notability. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Speedy Keep. Agree with the concerns by DustFormsWords, an AfD is not an appropriate place to seek a merge. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speedy Keep. Agree with the 2 user's (DustFormsWords, and Sjones23). Also, it seems that this is only a profile with a voice actor. I read the reason that Since we don't consider the different types of Pokemon, we will not consider the different Digimon either (just something like that). Yes I agree to that, but Pokemon cast (except for human cast) are not speaking, unlike Digimon that all of the monsters there are speaking. So in this case, I don't see the real point on why this article needed to delete. (That goes for the other as well). Hamham31 Heke! 03:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merge requests can be made by going to WP:MERGE#Proposing_a_merger, not AfD (it's called Articles for deletion). →Σ τ c. 07:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. try RM Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gomamon[edit]

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

WP:IINFO Should be merged into existing article on Digimon Soxwon (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - (a) AfD is not the appropriate forum to seek a merge; this should be done on the article's talk page. (b) WP:IINFO is not a sufficiently detailed reason to justify a page deletion; bereft of context it amounts to "I don't like it". - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Merge discussions should occur in the relevant talk page. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merge requests can be made by going to WP:MERGE#Proposing_a_merger, not AfD (it's called Articles for deletion). →Σ τ c. 07:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) HurricaneFan 25 01:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palmon[edit]

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

WP:IINFO Should be merged into existing article on digimon Soxwon (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - (a) AfD is not the appropriate forum to seek a merge; this should be done on the article's talk page. (b) WP:IINFO is not a sufficiently detailed reason to justify a page deletion; bereft of context it amounts to "I don't like it". (Also, separately taking nine separate Digimon articles to AfD like this is just about the most disruptive way possible of dealing with this content. If you couldn't get a consensus among the editors at the main Digimon page then that should have been the end of it, and if you didn't try then you should have.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A merge discussion is not a place for AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Merge discussions should occur in the relevant talk page. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 01:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biyomon[edit]

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

WP:IINFO Merge into existing article on digimon Soxwon (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - (a) AfD is not the appropriate forum to seek a merge; this should be done on the article's talk page. (b) WP:IINFO is not a sufficiently detailed reason to justify a page deletion; bereft of context it amounts to "I don't like it". - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, Activate! We don't need another mass deletion on this site, unlike the List of Pricing Game articles.--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Chris[reply]

Speedy Keep A merge discussion is not a place for AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Merge discussions should occur in the relevant talk page. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:18, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 01:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentomon[edit]

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

WP:IINFO Should be merged into existing article on digimon Soxwon (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - (a) AfD is not the appropriate forum to seek a merge; this should be done on the article's talk page. (b) WP:IINFO is not a sufficiently detailed reason to justify a page deletion; bereft of context it amounts to "I don't like it". - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, Activate! We don't need another mass deletion on this site, unlike the List of Pricing Game articles.--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Chris[reply]

Speedy Keep A Merge discussion is not a place for AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Agree with the concerns by Tomballguy and Knowledgekid87. A merge is definitely not a place for AfD. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:07, 25 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. wrong venue Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patamon[edit]

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

WP:IINFO Merge to main article on digimon Soxwon (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - (a) AfD is not the appropriate forum to seek a merge; this should be done on the article's talk page. (b) WP:IINFO is not a sufficiently detailed reason to justify a page deletion; bereft of context it amounts to "I don't like it". - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Merge discussions should occur in the relevant talk page. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merge requests can be made by going to WP:MERGE#Proposing_a_merger, not AfD (it's called Articles for deletion). →Σ τ c. 07:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euclid (computer program)[edit]

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

Kept 3 years ago with promise of sourcing that never came. On closer inspection, the sources from the last AFD are press releases or directory listings. Removing prod since you can't prod what's already at AFD. Still seems to fail notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The package is notable, more sources are readily available and AFD is still not cleanup. Warden (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Right now, you've just cited three arguments to avoid all at once. How is the package notable? Where are the sources? I couldn't find any, and I just said the ones from the last AFD are unusable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what you say does not seem reliable. You claim that the sources previously presented are press releases or directory listings. This is false because, for example, source 2 presented by JulesH in the previous AFD was a conference paper published by the Institut für Computergraphik und Algorithmen at Vienna University of Technology. My own searching quickly indicated that there were satisfactory sources and so the topic is notable. I shall not exert myself to supply details of these because you have the off-putting habit of claiming the credit for work done by other editors in such cases. If you want someone to work upon the article then you might try using the {{rescue}} tag or the magic word. Warden (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Sources are in the previous AFD. That they are not in the article is not the article's fault, and is not reason for deletion. As stated above, AFD is not for cleanup. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even reading what I write? I said THE SOURCES IN THE LAST AFD ARE NOT USABLE IN MY OPINION. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of the four links in the previous AFD, two have gone away, one is a copy of a press release, and one is a conference paper. If that were all, then they would not add up to notability. But the discussion is of course not confined to those sources alone, as CW points out. Here are some more [26] 8 occurrences, including "Euclid is one of Europe's primary CAD products"; [27]; [28]; Ricca Edmondson (1997). The Political Context of Collective Action. Routledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science. Routledge. p. 42. ISBN 0203449673.; [29]; [30]; [31]. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Cooper, B.S. (April 1985). "Application of the EUCLID system in the design and manufacture of hydraulic manifolds - a case study". Computer-Aided Engineering Journal. 2 (2): 50–56. doi:10.1049/cae:19850011. ISSN 0263-9327. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. Multiple peer-reviewed sources specifically about this topic consitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:31, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Nishimoto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

as per my previous nomination a year ago, fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. simply being a TV presenter does not guarantee notability. no real significant indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only sourcing provided is Imdb link, which indicates that she was on 10 episodes of a non-notable TV show a couple of years ago. Gnews hits are mostly PR and side mentions. The most substantial thing I found is this item, which is not exactly promising. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found a few old articles via a general gsearch, but they're dubious at best. [32], [33] She's just not notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE unless some sources are provided to prove relevance. McMarcoP (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for GNG. --Cox wasan (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, presenting on TV does not equal notability and no sources to establish notability. JoshyDinda (talk) 18:59, 27 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Vaughan[edit]

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

Non-notable Hippogso (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep There seem to be plenty of independent sources indicating that he holds a influential position in his field. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be an acceptable amount of sources to prove notability in this field. McMarcoP (talk) 17:19, 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. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renan Kanbay[edit]

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

The prod was removed. This actress is non-notable. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sole claim to notability is being in an unnotable film (zero gnews hits for title with lead actor's name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Non-notable actress with exactly one credit, in a recently-released non-notable short. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted, the actor is not important. Askadaleia (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Actor's extremely short career fails WP:ENT and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per Hobbes Goodyear. McMarcoP (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete actor has one credit and nothing else. Vincelord (talk) 15:58, 30 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iconicles (series 1)[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability of this series. No article currently exists for the program so its a bit premature to create an article for a particular series. Prod removed without explanation. Article has already been speedy deleted once. noq (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:54, 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 - T P 16:32, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ghits are primary and routine listings, plus a couple of routine industry notices that BBC had bought the show. "Was once on TV" does not, by itself, give the subject sufficient notability. The closest I could find to a review was this highly negative forum exchange. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:29, 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. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Power Systems[edit]

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

Pretty blatant advertising. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been edited to remove advertising language and improve the article from Historianqc1965. - HOalternator 10:55 (CST) 8 NOV 11

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:45, 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 - T P 16:33, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not offer any evidence of notability, and the generic nature of the name has meant I've had no success in finding any such evidence myself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of the 2 references, one is to the company itself, and the other is a bare page of GSA which gives nothing away. Unless better citations turn up, this is insufficient to prove Notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 2 relists and no notability has been shown. SL93 (talk) 02:32, 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. Arguably no comments after two relists = no consensus but no policy based arguments to keep have been presented and only being able to source to press releases is a reason to delete so I'm going to go with the limited consensus on the basis that given time no better sourcing has emerged Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveBatch[edit]

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

Article lacks reliable sources that are wholly independent of the subject (e.g. press releases do not count as sources). Thus, it appears to not meet the notability requirements for a company. Steven Walling • talk 21:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having in-depth independent third-party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I offered the Press Releases as sources to support the product timeline. What should I do to strengthen the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbrown05 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the general notability guidelines. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:16, 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 - T P 16:35, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Nbrown05: find reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:09, 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. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RIHA Journal[edit]

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

Relatively new journal, no independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. DePRODded with the argument that it is supported by several important institutes, but notability is not inherited. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:40, 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 - T P 16:38, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article for online-only collaborative publication between several dozen art history organizations. The fact of all these organizations makes general web and Gscholar searches a nuisance, as most hits appear to be primary to one of the organizations, or trivial mentions. The most interesting Gscholar hit is to a research article Prospects and challenges of international E-Publishing Projects – The example of RIHA Journal, which provides explanations for the journal's lack of success. Zero Gnews hits, but it was only founded in 2010, so perhaps it will become notable in time. Fails WP:GNG right now. Happy to have another look if substantial refs from WP:RS's can be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both WP:TOOSOON and Hobbes Goodyear. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:29, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Beech[edit]

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

I am unable to locate significant reliable source coverage in independent sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Some of the sources aren't even sources, others are COI sources, and a few don't actually mention Beech. The article itself is pretty noticeably a PR piece, and would have to be rewritten from scratch to approach neutrality. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination was fair but citations have been added from from the Telegraph and Baptist Times (added by anon editor), and I did a fairly thorough re-write. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two citations have been updated and corrected. Also Carl's latest book The Code has been added to the Bibliography. -User:DaveMedia (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)— DaveMedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 02:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not able to personally check most of the sources in the article but at least some of them appear to be reliable and independent in the context of the subject matter and, if accepted in good faith, they establish notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The individual seems notable enough and several of the sources reliable. Maybe some more in-depth sourcing would strengthen the status of this article. McMarcoP (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The bulk of the citations in the article are not from WP:RS. The two that are potentially reliable source citations to evaluate more deeply are The Baptist Times and the Telegraph. The Baptist Times piece [34] mentions him as part of a WP:BLP1E bike-ride. The Telegraph piece [35] is the closest to coverage, but its significance is not major. He is quoted a few times, but is not the focus of the article - even though the article appears to be the result of a Church press-release. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both this biography and that of the organization he heads, Christian Vision for Men, are simultaneously up for deletion, which I find concerning. The group seems clearly notable, the individual is probably notable. In the event this closes as a delete, be sure to merge content to the article on the group. I'll offer no formal recommendation here other than to note that CHRISTIAN VISION FOR MEN (exact phrase) + BEECH generated 53,900 Google hits, indicating the high likelihood that adequate substantial independently published sources exist if one is motivated enough to dig them out. See the deletion discussion for Christian Vision for Men for examples of a couple that I have found about the group. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 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 to delete. There is no consensus below as to whether the sources in the article are sufficient to support notability under the GNG or not. If better sources do not appear in the near future a subsequent nomination at AfD may be reasonable. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glamourina[edit]

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

As noted at Wikipedia_talk:POLAND#Prod_proposal:_Glamourina, this article has serious issues with notability (a blogger), and reliability of sources is poor (blogs, etc. - see WP:BOMBARDMENT. As at least one editor seems to disagree with the proposed prod, I think we need a wider community discussion on whether this person is notable or not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know, I can't read Polish. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Miasto kobiet seems to be a newspaper of record. — Racconish^Tk 13:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd feel more confient in that after AfDing that article on pl wiki, which I may do. A specialized regional fashion magazine with a claim of 15,000 publication volume, using only one self-ref... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I nominated the magazine for AfD at pl wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2011:11:21:Miasto kobiet (magazyn)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not certain if the magazine is non-notable in reality, I am sure its current form on pl-wiki does not satisfy the credibility&notability criteria, so it should not be used as an argument for keeping this article. Pundit|utter 03:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the discussion here is not about the magazine (which does not have its en wiki entry), but about a biography which uses the said magazine as one of its sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, the pl-wiki article on the magazine cannot be used as an argument to keep the article about the person. If it was unclear, sorry ;) Pundit|utter 20:38, 26 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) 02:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article about a completely non-notable person. - Darwinek (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; I assume that Piotrus can read Polish. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe there is enough here to satisfy GNG, and the article appears to be neutral and appropriate. Chzz ► 23:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you define "enough"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe fashion blogging in Poland is more notable/encyclopedic than Glamourina's individual contribution. Could an editor develop such aspect and redirect the current article?— Racconish^Tk 07:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It clearly meets the notability requirements (specifically, WP:BIO) because it demonstrates "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 22:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A concern is that the sources are not reliable (blogs, self-published, and such). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second: it clearly DOES NOT meet the GNG, because it DOES NOT demonstrate "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" Pundit|utter 00:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll elaborate and note that in my experience, a common counter to our objection is for the defenders to present a discussion of the sources and tell us why they are reliable. This has not happened, we still know very little about the sources other than they look rather unreliable based on the (little) info present in the article (mostly unknown websites linked). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check the references as they are now? They changed quite a bit since the day you first PRODded it, on November 10, and I believe the article now meets WP:GNG--★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 06:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked. Yes, they are nicely formatted, but can you tell me how any of them are reliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my grasp of Polish is extremely limited but ... yes, I'd say there's enough there. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - the sources look good to me, might need a bit more of clean up. person is notable in the polish fashion industry. Americanpatriot1|

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huntington State Bank[edit]

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

It is an orphaned article, and it is not anywhere near notable enough to keep around. Plus, it might lead to confusion with the much larger Huntington Bancshares. Jgera5 (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article's orphan status is a matter for tagging, not AfD, and any potential confusion is readily and currently handled with a hatnote. While the article currently needs better references, I'm not sure what "not anywhere near notable enough to keep around" as regards the notability policy for financial institutions. - Dravecky (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This discussion was not listed on a daily log page, I have now relisted it. ascidian | talk-to-me 19:31, 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, ascidian | talk-to-me 19:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepth coverage. coverage merely confirms existence or a robbery occuring there. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See my original nomination. Jgera5 (talk) 05:38, 28 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. Sandstein 05:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Betterment.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not Notable. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some indepth coverage in national and regional sources
1. Betterment.com brings index funds to the masses Los Angeles Times [36]
2. Betterment Strives For Better Investing International Business Times [37] causa sui (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This discussion was not listed on a daily log page, I have now relisted it. ascidian | talk-to-me 19:30, 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, ascidian | talk-to-me 19:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:00, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Victoria[edit]

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

A musician and actor/screenwriter. Has released only one album in which she self-released. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. She acted and wrote a web series that was on YouTube. Unable to find any reliable references about her. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources mentioned is independent and/or relevant. Her association with a notable person (Lalaine) is not enough to make her notable. McMarcoP (talk) 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stadionul Ovidiu[edit]

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

No Google Book results and no references for this Romanian football stadium which only holds 1000 people. Teams play at "liga2" down to "liga 4," apparently not the highest level of competition. Does not appear to satisfy notability unless multiple reliable sources with significant coverage (not necessarily in English or on-line) can be found. Edison (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:16, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fully agree with Edison, no source asserting its relevance could be found. The teams that (according to the article itself) play there never reached the highest tier of the national league, although one of them seems to be on the rise due to being owned by a former international. At a stretch, the article could be redirected to FC Viitorul Constanţa McMarcoP (talk) 17:36, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stadionul Chimia (Brazi)[edit]

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

This sports stadium, seating only 2,000, is the venue for a "liga 3" Romanian football team. The article has no references. Google books had no relevant results. Unless multiple reliable and independent sources are found with significant coverage, it appears to fail notability. Edison (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:16, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (a) article does not claim the subject is notable; (b) article does not provide sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG; (c) my independent searches have failed to uncover any such sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fully agree with the nominator, no source asserting its relevance could be found. The team that (according to the article itself) plays there never reached the highest tier of the national league. At a stretch, the article could be redirected to CS Chimia Brazi McMarcoP (talk) 17:41, 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 -- Y not? 15:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stadionul Unirea (Sânnicolau Mare)[edit]

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

Did not find references sufficient to satisfy WP:N under either the English name or the name "Stadionul Unirea" for this small stadium, seating only 3,000. The article, created three years ago, has never had a reference. Does not appear to satisfy WP:N unless multiple reliable sources with significant coverage (not necessarily in English or on-line) can be foundEdison (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:19, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fully agree with the nominator, no source asserting its relevance could be found. The team that (according to the article itself) plays there never reached the highest tier of the national league. At a stretch, the article could be redirected to CS Unirea Sânnicolau Mare McMarcoP (talk) 17:40, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circus One[edit]

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

Compilation album which, while it has some notable artists on it, doesn't seem to be notable in any other way. — Joseph Fox 15:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I am able to confirm it is for sale, and not much else. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 7 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 - T P 02:50, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too could find no reliably sourced info to cite. Non notable compilation album.--MLKLewis (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 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 redirect to Selena albums discography. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mis Primeras Grabaciones[edit]

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

Sources are a fansite, Yahoo, Amazon and answers.com. I couldn't find any non-trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose largely because it is notable. The album can be expanded similar to Selena Live!, I haven't gotten that far down the line with expanding as I'm currently working on Ven Conmigo. Furthermore, even though the album never impacted any music chart nor did RIAA issued a certification, her singles had extensive airplay in South Texas (while ineligible for the Hot 100) and were issued out as promotional singles. I support the mass redirect of her non-solo career singles but not her albums that helped shaped her in the Tejano market and to be noticed. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources. Where are they? Can't have an article without sources. Your whole argument boils down to "it's notable because it's notable". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:01, 30 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, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source and these states that the album was one of the early milestones of her career, though its not enough to say that it is anywhere notable in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article. However, this source says that the album did not sell well and gives genres the band used to record the album. The album is mentioned in the book called The encyclopedia of popular music. It was given a three out of five star rating by Allmusic. If these are still not enough to save this article then I'll vote to redirect the article to Selena albums discography. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it does have stars from Allmusic, that means bupkis since they didn't bother to write a review. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then a redirect would be best in my opinion. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is acceptable, since unlike one of her other albums, the existence of this one is verifiable if not its notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I don't know what the consensus here is, but I can confidently say it's not delete -- Y not? 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crawley Council election, 2012[edit]

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

WP:Crystal. Can perfectly be moved to the workspace of the author untill there is something more to tell about these elections, say March/April 2012! Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The elections will take place and the date is already known as it is set out in statute and the wards up for election are known due to the expiration of the exisiting councillors terms. There has also been no publication of boundary changes and no Standing Orders have been passed by parliament modifying the boundaries. This means the ward names and alike are the same as when they were last contested. The wait and see argument is a bit bogus here as you wait and see until when? This is better discussed on the project page to discuss if there should be "cut off" date before the creation of election articles. --Lucy-marie (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But having an empty article for the next few months is not really usefull. That is why I suggest to move it to your own userspace, untill there is more information available. Without candidates, it is pretty useless. But removing is silly. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case this is better considered on the article discussion page or on the creator’s user talk page. AfD is only meant for the nomination of articles for genuine and permanent deletion and not to discuss page moves or pages mergers.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, mergers are often discussed and recommended here as an alternative to deletion.North8000 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true as a compromise or result of the discussion but the original nomination must be for deletion and not for moving, merging or redirection. Otherwise it is not strictly a "good faith" nomination.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What kind of .... are you telling? It is a proposal to move the article out of the articlespace to your own workspace . No merger, no deletion, just a move to another sector of Wikipedia. Nothing gets lost, it is only parked on a by-road instead of on the motorway. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion to delete the article, if there is a wish to move the articles to another place on Wikipedia (including a userspace)then a request a move is required. Using deletion request for requesting an aticle be moved to another part of Wikipedia is an abuse of deletion requests.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a discussion to remove the article from the articlespace. The way it is removed, is not per definition the destruction of the article by deleting it. Why such a fuzz and big words? Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem here is there is an established procedure for moving an article and that is Move Request. Perhaps talking to the creator of the article before nomination for deletion would have acheiverd your goal. Deletion request is only meant for when an article is genuinly not fit to be on Wikipedia because it fails to meet the set standards. In this case the request is not to delete the article it is to move the article, so the request is not a deletion request.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe you should read WP:CIVIL. I take offence out of your words... Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to go off topic please remain on topic, all comments refer to this deletion request (including the nature of the request) and if any user has taken offense based on a factual reading of the situation then tough. Perhaps more thought and research (such as looking on the talk page) was required before nomination to ensure the criteria for a deletion request is met before nominating. No user has had thier character questioned or attacked. Simply the nature of this errouneous deletion request has been questioned as it is not a deletion request, it is a move request.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ no references, crystal-balling as to which parties will contest which seats. Ineffectual article with unverifiable content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So ignore the fact it's entirely unreferenced and speculates as to the parties contesting the seats? And presumably we can create Crawley Council election, 2013 using your logic? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, per WP:CRYSTAL which goes on to state : "[some articles are] not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, go ahead and create it! Refs added, I assume you'll be nominating Broxbourne Council election, 2012 and other articles in the navigation template too. Lugnuts (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well perhaps you're unaware of an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom discussing the value (or otherwise) of these stub articles that can easily be merged into the previous election articles as they add nothing other than the planned date of the election. I didn't nominate this article either, but I agree that it's a pointless article that adds no value to Wikipedia, speculates on the composition of parties running for particular seats and full of redlinked templates. All in all, pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't aware of that discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion mentioned by TRM is the forum for where the discussions should take place and not a deletion discusssion where the nominator simply wants a page move to user space. Deletion discussion is not the place for that kind of discusssion. The link to the discussion mentioned by TRM is also on the article talk page, so no research was done and no attempt was made at discussion before nominating for deletion. All in all a very poor nomination.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that. The guidance/policy should be agreed there and once finalised, it can be used to keep/delete individual election articles, not the other way around. Lugnuts (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, assuming good faith, the nominator wasn't aware of the discussion either? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be true but the nominator only had to look on the discussion page of the article. Also the nominator them self has stated unequivocally that they do not want the article deleted they simply want the article moved to a user space.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, we are where we are. No point crying over spilt milk, let's just see how the AFD pans out, and continue the overall discussion at the Wikiproject. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aequo (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Convention has always fallen onto the side of these articles being maintained. This discussion has been held numerous times, and each time the basis for keeping always outweighs the basis for deleting. The articles are established parts of the wider UK politics project, are notable by the nature of their content, are not 'first source' material or original research, and do not break the CRYSTAL rules by virtue of their status in the political calender. That some parts of the country has more electoral statistics to hand is of no consequence. doktorb _words^deeds 15:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So how do you know the "Justice Party" are running for any seat (for example)? That's original research. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not a resident of Crawley so the basis of finding proof is hard to make....BUT, before we go down that route, I will agree with you that this entire issue is somewhat contentious. I suggest (not least because it's an article which appears safe from deletion for the time being) that people look at what I did for Preston Council election, 2012, especially if you press "Edit" and see that I have hidden election results and sourced encyclopedic content in the interim. doktorb _words^deeds 15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So it is original research. It certainly isn't verifiable. I thought we worked on the basis of information in our articles being verifiable, not speculative? (Incidentally, if the article stays, it should really look like this as it will then contain almost no unverified material...) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think it is OR as such. I have election boxes with parties ready and waiting, only I have taken the step to hide them. If the user does that too, *in addition to* adding the kind of ward information/electoral history as I have, then we could be good to go. The issue here is how specific local information doesn't equate to Wikipedia rules. I know, pretty much, exactly who will stand in each Preston ward, because elections here are dull, small and parochial, with the same people taking part every year. But I also know that Wikipedia doesn't like having information without citations. Lucy obviously has the same small-town local elections going on in Crawley because otherwise she would not be confident in keeping the parties as they are. If this article does stay, then she (or anyone else) should copy my model for local elections to circumnavigate their way around AfD sharks. (Incidentally, user:DaveWild is also a good man to go to for this sort of thing) doktorb _words^deeds 15:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, but just because a user "knows" something, it doesn't mean it should be included in an article unless it can be independently and reliably verified. This information is not verifiable and should be hidden until some/all of it can be verified. (Plus it would hide all the uses of that broken template). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Absolutely right, but I still oppose deletion, which is the question posed by this nomination. If Lucy has the kind of information which Davewild and I include where we can on these sorts of articles then it is instantly saved. "Common knowledge" has a place in Wikipedia, though, and local elections might only have two main sources (local newspaper, the local council itself). doktorb _words^deeds 15:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, I would be reasonably happy to keep the version which doesn't have all the empty tables speculating over the composition of the various wards, because the rest of the article is reasonably well referenced. I see no place for empty, unreferenced, unverifiable, speculative tables of data (with broken templates...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 22 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, Black Kite (t) 00:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:CRYSTAL is not intended to apply to future events which are near-certainties, such as scheduled elections. In addition, it is likely that there will be a large amount of verifiable information available on this topic prior to the event that will be of encyclopaedic value to a large cohort of readers, and there is an administrative benefit to the project in having an article available to collect and organise that information as it occurs. The topic is clearly notable and is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Disputes about quality or verifiability of article content are not a matter for AfD and can be handled through the normal edit/revert/discuss process. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - still see no point in an article that can simply be a single sentence in the previous year's election article, but I've removed the unverifiable, speculative tables and added a {{cn}} template where required. It's now a stub which is effectively useless other than to tell us the alleged date of the election, but at least most of it is verifiable and not original research. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And damaging or destroying the article was just what I was trying to avoid by suggesting a move. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see what "damaged" or "destroy[ed]" the article. Can you clarify? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes could you please clarify how that has "damaged" the article as the content still exists in the history.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Moves are not achieved by use of the delete function. Please see WP:RM. Warden (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note it's probably worth noting that User:Lucy-marie had already copied the page to her userspace. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

**Correction to the above its User:Lucy-marie --Lucy-marie (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete -- Council elections come up regularly, unlike Parliamentary ones, so that this is not WP:CRYSTAL. It is certain to happen (barring a revolution or an unlikely change in the law). However, we do not normally regard councillors as notable. Even articels on councils do not normally have much detail on their past composition. I am therefore dubious whether this is a kind of article that WP should encourage. I note that very few councils have election articles; we do not usually have articles on wards (as such), though the may coincide with a village or other locality that may be used as a surrogate. Since the councillors (let alone the defeated candidates) will be NN, there is little purpose in listing them. A table giving the results for each ward and the result ought to be sufficient. Accordingly I support ramblingman's action in removing all the blank tables. I suspect that this subject needs to be discussed more fully at a UK Politics project page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep for now; if it's a question about whether we should encourage such articles this needs an rfc , not a debate on an isolated article, and the article kept until there is a general consensus. I can see arguments either way, but want to judge this in a general context. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 30 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychophysical Therapy[edit]

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

This article was largely created by a dubious source, originally in Q&A form, and describes a dubious form of therapy which I can't seem to find any good sources on. I attempted to fix the article but I really can't see any way of keeping the article and having it adhere to WP:NPOV. I think it's important to discuss whether this article belongs on Wikipedia. —Entropy (T/C) 00:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Further investigation has turned up that the starter and main contributor of this article is User:PTGAadmin, and I have a strong suspicion that PTGA stands for Psychophysical Therapist's Guild of Australia. If so, that account is meant solely to advertise the PTGA and their invention of "psychophysical therapy". That also means this page is just a cleverly-disguised advertisement. —Entropy (T/C) 06:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, extremely fringe, and no MEDRS. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An alternative therapy meant to resolve blockages to your aura, or "bioenergy field". The underlying concept is one that has been invented several times and offered under several different brands. We should have an article on the underlying concept, but we do not need an article on every new brand or method that comes along. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any reliable sources to establish this concept as either medicine or WP:FRINGE - unlike similar but better known energy-field "therapies" such as Therapeutic touch. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 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 Keep. The consensus below is that the coverage, though it focuses on his work naturally enough, is sufficient to justify an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Gelb[edit]

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

No claims as to notability appear in the text. Searching results indicate a lack of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party sources. JFHJr (㊟) 20:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regrettably no notability when I tried to find some. Collect (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Former puff piece, no notability. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've changed my mind, with thanks to Goodvac, esp. for finding this review, which is hilarious. "This is dangerous stuff." Drmies (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gelb meets WP:AUTHOR (3c).
His How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci: Seven Steps to Genius Every Day has "won significant critical attention", having received reviews at the following—"Mere genius can't begin to describe him" from Wausau Daily Herald, "No science to genius just art" from The Manhattan Mercury, "The Only Thing This Book Will Motivate Is Sleep" from Chicago Tribune, "What you can learn from da Vinci" from Chicago Sun-Times, "On the Same Page with Leonardo" from St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Pointing Up the Lessons of Da Vinci" from The Philadelphia Inquirer (includes substantial biographical information), "Create like Leonardo innovate like Edison" from Investment Advisor, and "A Genuis for Marketing" from Ottawa Citizen.
His Discover Your Genius: How to Think Like History's Ten Most Revolutionary Minds has been reviewed in "Self-help from 10 geniuses" from USA Today.
His More Balls Than Hands: Juggling Your Way to Success by Learning to Love Your Mistakes has been reviewed in "Juggling helps focus mind-body link, author says" from USA Today.
General biographical articles about Gelb include "Da Vinci At Dinner" from The Washington Post, "Have a ball (Interview)" from IndustryWeek, and "You, too, can be as smart as that other Leonardo: Brainy author tells how" from National Post. To a degree, these latter sources contain enough biographical information to contribute to passage of the GNG. Goodvac (talk) 05:43, 21 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, Sandstein 20:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Goodvac. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:48, 22 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. 2nd relist due to BLP. Thanks, Black Kite (t) 00:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for GNG. --Cox wasan (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you cast as much as a glance at the links above? Explain how eight reviews of How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci and three articles with substantial biographical information do not confer notability via WP:AUTHOR and the GNG, respectively. Goodvac (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be surprised by Cox wasan's behavior... I'm increasely suspecting Cow wasan is a bot that randomly gives "delete" votes with the same identical, poor comment.--Cavarrone (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goodvac - nice finds. Subject meets WP:AUTHOR. Gongshow ^Talk 05:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goodvac good-work, the links he provided support a claim of notability linked to the WP:AUTHOR criteria.--Cavarrone (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews are one of the things that prove the notability of books and of their authors. It is, btw, not necessary for the reviews to cover the routine biography of the author in any detail. Hemingway had a very interesting personal life, but he'd be just as notable if we knew nothing about him except his books, the way we know almost nothing of Sappho. People are notable for the work they do. As for the work, the books are very widely read How to think like Leonardo Da Vinci is in over 1000 US libraries! His sound recording from it is in almost 900! Discover your genius is in almost 800; Body Leaning in 700.His works have been translated into Spanish. Chinese, German, Japanese , Polish, French, Swedish, Danish, Slovenian, Persian, Turkish, and Vietnamese. (all accordiung to Worldcat) What the article needs is not deletion, but expansion.. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 29 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked (film)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage - not one review even. SL93 (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as the epitome of non-notable. According to a SPS review, the film was the first and only feature film by James Roberts,[38] though he did write and direct a similarly non-notable short film in 2007. Okay.. so Blocked got release. It never received coverage. And being an "offical selection" at the Silver Lake Film Festival is not an award... it's simply being accepted to screen. Without commentary in secondary source, its a gonner. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rotten Tomatoes also shows zero reviews. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:55, 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 keep. Concerns for deletion appear to have been addressed. There does appear to be an emerging consensus for changing the article's title. Further discussion should take place in a requested move. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Top Gear[edit]

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

A somewhat unencyclopaedic synthesis forked from a main article; these criticisms of a TV series are not in themselves sufficiently notable (and are summarised in the main article about the series). – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- not a terrible starting point for an article. The show is controversial (in a storm in a teacup sense), I don't see why this article is unencyclopedic. Petty, yes, but wowsers like to whinge. Greglocock (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Natural break-out article from the main topic article, lots of quality third-party coverage. Deletion is in my view completely unjustifed by policy and would be pure censorship. Having said that the article does need quite a bit of work (like about 3 million others...) Rangoon11 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough general coverage in the press to show notability. Lugnuts (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hostile attack page, contrary to core policy. The article title has been devised to foster a one-sided ragbag of whinges but Wikipedia is not the BBC complaints department. The main forum for that is named Points of View — Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- a very good article infact, a very good representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno Russell (talk • contribs) 12:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In response to Colonel Warden, Top Gear has been criticised in the UK national press on numerous occasions. Regardless of your personal opinion on whether or not the criticism is justified, it is clear from the numerous references that it is certainly notable, and that is what counts here. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Show is notable, and there is a fair bit of valid content. --Axel™ (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is sufficently well-sourced and notable. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is it too early to WP:SNOW this? --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Surely not. This is of course not a vote, and in terms of points made rather than number of contributors, it's not so clear-cut. I'd say there's some degree of confusion whereby the notability of the programme influences the notability of the criticisms, which isn't a given. 188.220.18.163 (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But do a major overhaul so there is no need for any more tags at the top of the page. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 14:49, 24 November 2011 (UDelete
Delete this whole article is a biased way of looking at TopGear. So because it is biased it has no place in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDamox (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the opening paragraph, I see both a criticism by Jeremy Clarkson towards the BBC, and a counter-response from the BBC following this. That doesn't sound particularly like bias to me. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep series that has had significant criticism in recent years discussed in reliable sources (e.g. in UK newspapers/tabloids). If there are not enough citations add them instead of deleting an article which sooner or later will be recreated if someone is bold enough to create an article with a deleted article message popping up (which usually discourages the average person). S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absurd split combining several disparate things: the dispute over the extent to which BBC supported the program, the occurrences of racism and homophobia, and the dangerous or unduly damaging episodes. Putting all this together amount to a POV split: everything negative about Top Gear. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - perhaps a better title would be "Controversy of Top Gear"? --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment (as the original nominator) — if the article is retained I'd certainly be supportive of that name change. There is undeniably controversy. I'd still be unconvinced it's sufficiently notable for its own article (references alone, even this many, don't establish suitable notability), but "criticism" is widely (if wrongly!) perceived as inherently one-sided whereas a description of controversy would seem more fair as well as factual. – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment There are a lot of articles beginning with Criticism of... including one named Criticism of Wikipedia. I don't see what's controversial about the word criticism. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Although my vote of keep above is not dependent on it, I would be happy with a change of name as proposed above (although I think something like 'Controversies relating to Top Gear' would be neater'). Rangoon11 (talk) 18:25, 30 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.

[1] Times of India

[2] ramaonline.com

[1]

[2]