Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 2

< 1 October	3 October >

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, with a nice salty tang. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SnapComms[edit]

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

Several times recreated. Non notable software company. Only claim to notability is finalist, not winner, for a minor award. References in previously speedied versions entirely from PR sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GNews returns company web site and three press releases, clearly labeled as a such. GEverything returns a blizzard of links to company's website and its Twitter, Facebook, etc. homes; press releases; some directory listings. Nothing close to a RS source that I could see, but I confess I did not track down every last snowflake. The two external links in the article consist of a rather lengthy list of award winners by a local tourist/local business development board and coverage of same by a local paper. Neither mentions this company, so its claim to have been a runner-up in the competition, such as it was, cannot be verified. Not that I would have considered it meaningful or informative if they had swept every award in every category--I don't consider publicly-funded press releases more meaningful than privately-funded ones. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and WP:NOTPROMOTION. As this article has been speedily deleted twice already for similar reasons, recommend delete and salt. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: a software hosted solution. Jeezus. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 05:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once apon a koopa[edit]

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

This DVD is not sufficiently notable to be included. An endorsed PROD was contested. →Σ ⚑ ☭ 23:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The DVD isn't a standalone movie, it's just a collection of episodes from The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, which already has its own entry. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. I considered a redirect to the series, but I doubt very much that the original DVD release included this misspelled title. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not assert notability.--Ukraine Calling (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A10, WP:CSD#G3 -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cheney 911[edit]

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

Another 9/11 conspiracy theory, already covered in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Unsourced, poorly written and duplicative - recommend deletion. Prioryman (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "source" is a web page plugging a bookTigerboy1966 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 9/11 conspiracy theories as a plausible search term. →Σ ⚑ ☭ 23:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No point redirecting, since it's not a useful redirect. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as a blatant hoax; a good conspiracy theory should have some truth in it. Far from there being "many...fighter pilots in the sky at the time", the fact was there were virtually no aircraft airborne at the time, and (much more credible) reports are that in the haste to get planes launched, some of them were only carrying training ammunition. A thoroughly WP:MADEUP conspiracy theory at the very best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coolmine RFC[edit]

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

WP:NN, club hasn't won any significant leagues or cups, the basic requirement for notability Gnevin (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Multiple deletion nominations per minute via automation, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, insufficient cut-and-paste nomination rationale. This will be rubberstamped where appropriate, just like these sort of nominations were. Carrite (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "WP:NN" is another name for WP:N, which means that the nomination says, "WP:Notability". As per WP:Speedy keep reason # 1 the nomination does not advance a reason for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD can be closed immediately by a non-involved editor who feels that there is "no doubt" that a speedy keep applies. As per WP:NAC, "...a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate." Unscintillating (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it meets Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability point 2. "Played in an officially recognized domestic or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board High Performance Union". The team is a member club of the IRFU and plays in a recognised competition. See Page 82. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:REDACT at WP:TPG states,

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff...or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.
Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:

...

Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
...

An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded <ins>like that</ins> and ends up like that.

Unscintillating (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage in the Herald, [1] [2] plus a non-trivial mention in the sunday times [3] and some trivial mentions in the irish times and independent. [4] [5] While not amzing coverage it is enough for me to lean Keep. AIRcorn (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railway Union RFC[edit]

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

WP:NN Gnevin (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:SK reason #1. Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Multiple deletion nominations per minute via automation, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, insufficient cut-and-paste nomination rationale. This will be rubberstamped where appropriate, just like these sort of nominations were. Carrite (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parkmore RFC[edit]

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

WP:NN, club hasn't won any significant leagues or cups, the basic requirement for notability Gnevin (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Multiple deletion nominations per minute via automation, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, insufficient cut-and-paste nomination rationale. This will be rubberstamped where appropriate, just like these sort of nominations were. Carrite (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "WP:NN" is another name for WP:N, which means that the nomination says, "WP:Notable". As per WP:Speedy keep reason # 1 the nomination does not advance a reason for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD can be closed immediately by a non-involved editor who feels that there is "no doubt" that a speedy keep applies. As per WP:NAC, "...a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate." Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it meets Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability point 2. "Played in an officially recognized domestic or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board High Performance Union". The team is a member club of the IRFU and plays in a recognised competition. See Page 98. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the edit to the nomination, WP:REDACT at WP:TPG states,

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff...or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.
Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:

...

Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
...

An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded <ins>like that</ins> and ends up like that.

Unscintillating (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swords RFC[edit]

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

WP:NN Gnevin (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Multiple deletion nominations per minute via automation, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, insufficient cut-and-paste nomination rationale. This will be rubberstamped where appropriate, just like these sort of nominations were. Carrite (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "WP:NN" is another name for WP:N, which means that the nomination says, "WP:Notability". As per WP:Speedy keep reason # 1 the nomination does not advance a reason for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD can be closed immediately by a non-involved editor who feels that there is "no doubt" that a speedy keep applies. As per WP:NAC, "...a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate." Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it meets Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability point 2. "Played in an officially recognized domestic or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board High Performance Union". The team is a member club of the IRFU and plays in a recognised competition. See Page 105. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few significant mentions in the Fingal independent.[6] [7] [8] [9] Appears to be a local paper so may not be the greatest reference for notability. More mentions in the Herald [10] and even one in a Swedish (I think) paper.[11] There is also the lessr consideration of WP:Otherstuffexists. 14 clubs play in the Leinster League Division Three and it does not seem like a good idea to delete three of them. AIRcorn (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I Wanna Do (Keizo Nakanishi song)[edit]

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

No sources anywhere in the article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 21:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom — Status {^talk_contribs 00:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VERY WEAK keep - if this was, in fact, the track on which "[Christina] Aguilera made her first recording", it might have some slight notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But how can it be notable since there is no source proving that this is in fact Christina's first recording? - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 13:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although since there was already a dab page which mentions this, I have moved the dab page to the primary location. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyontawa[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional subject. This is an extensive, almost entirely in-universe article about a fictional people and language who appear only in a short film, Food for the Gods, and its as yet unfinished sequels. Food for the Gods itself seems to be of only marginal notability; the elements of its fictional universe are definitely not. While I can find some coverage of the film in independent reliable sources, I can't find any coverage whatsoever of the 'Kyontawa'. Robofish (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. Seems to be WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. This should not be merged, as there are no reliable sources. The entire article appears to be original research. Redirecting to the film is also problematic since Kyontawa, Burma is the more obvious redirect. Instead of redirecting a dab page could be created. Pburka (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the film article Food for the Gods where the fictional element has its foundation and context. As the nominator notes, the film has coverage in multiple independent secondary sources... the fictional Kyontawa don't. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (which implies redirect) to the film per the above. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional language/tribe does not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject. I agree with Pburka's comment that this article should not be merged since there is nothing of value references with reliable sources, it is mostly original research by synthesis and there is a real location that should have this redirect instead of this non-notable concept. Jfgslo (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Football Turnovers[edit]

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

It is all trivia. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 20:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could be the basis for a paragraph in 2008 Michigan Wolverines football team, but is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~WP:ESSAY. This is enough to make me wish there was a "G13 - utterly pointless" CSD criterion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)~~ Much better now, but still...utterly pointless trivia/WP:CRUFT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Delete This reads like an essay. Topic is misnamed, this is only about the 2008 football team. There are only two sentences about Michigan turnovers in the article, and only one source is given for those two sentences. I found a relevant article on the topic, but we would consider most articles from this website to be self-published. Any salvageable sentences in the article are obvious content that doesn't need to be saved, and the remainder is an opinion piece. Unscintillating (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Completely factual, backed by references, backed by objective numbers, and does not pertain only to 2008. Dbmillercode (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article was nominated 33 minutes after its creation. Those of us who commented earlier here wasted our time because the article was not yet stable. There are currently 23 times as many edits after the AfD nomination as there are before the AfD nominations (23 after, 1 before). There is nothing that makes this what Ron Ritzman would call a "High Risk" article that would justify a WP:IAR AfD nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, that the article is looking much better, but trivia is not appropriate for its own article. It would do well as a section for each of those seasons, maybe? This article is way better than what i find patrolling, and what it looked like a few days ago. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 03:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might be suitable for a sports almanac or maybe a magazine article. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Certainly this is called "drilling down" into detail. Who is actually going to search wikipedia for turnovers committed by the "winningest" team ever. I research obscure topics oftentimes, but I don't say to myself "wikipedia needs an article on every Snapple commercial ever made, with air dates, etc." I just don't think the turnovers committed by a single U.S. college (American) football team are notable for a *separate* article as a matter of good organization.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly unencyclopedic detail for an article. There's a limit to how far articles should be split, and this material is simply not enough for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entire premise of this article, that turnovers is the basis of the team not appearing in a bowl game since 2008, essentially is only based on a few op-ed columns. And these opinions seem to be expressed as facts without explicitly attributing their source. Seems like a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:YESPOV to me. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would even go far to say this may also be a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. The op-ed's cited are dated prior to the 2009 season. So this article then essentially merely lists the turnover stats for 2009 and 2010, and then implies the conclusion – not explicitly stated by any of the sources – that this supposed turnover/no-bowl-appearance relation also applies to those two seasons as well. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Borostean[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 not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. None of these footballers have played competitive football above Liga II, if at all. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Liga II not on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues so fails WP:FOOTBALL some of the above haven't even played in a Liga II first team game.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: do any of you understand what Dragosh is doing in edits like this? I mean, there's a template: Template:FC Botoşani squad. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he substituted the template, and is now having to correct each article in order to relfect the canges. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all fail WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sales enablement[edit]

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

At best, a non-notable buzz-word, not significantly used in the real world. At worst, an advertisement for a book describing the methods. (Please correct the category, if you can. It's either S or O, but I cannot rationally determine which. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete bollocks, full of nonsense about how our method will not only prevent you from failing but make you succeed! ...the process of arming an organization’s sales force with access to the insight, experts, and information that will ultimately increase revenue.... To understand Sales Enablement, the term enable needs to be contrasted with support. Support generally means to prevent from failing. Enablement generally means to help succeed. The difference in a Sales Support organization and a Sales Enablement organization lies in their mission statement. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Park Bench Poet[edit]

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

Band, which do not meet WP:BAND. Largely incidental articles and gig listings. No significant coverage, no single/album commercial success, no independently notable musicians, haven't won any major awards/competitions, and no compositions that are notable. No record of significant national rotation.Heywoodg ^talk 19:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some minor coverage here. But not the coverage needed to meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Express Flight 2415[edit]

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

Non-notable aircrash (see WP:AIRCRASH) and covered by aircraft type article. DexDor (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. At the risk of sounding flippiant: plane fell, everyone died, no long-lasting effects on the air transportation system. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's difficult to imagine that there wasn't significant, independent coverage of an air crash involving a major American airline which killed everyone on board. The WP:AIRCRASH mentioned above clearly states that incidents resulting in airliner hull loss or loss of life are notable. Pburka (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed, I'm absolutely positive this was covered enough to meet GNG. The fact that we can't find online references isn't a reason for it to be deleted. In this case, I think WP:BEFORE demands a search of relevant regional papers' archives (e.g. Spokane Herald, Seattle Times, etc.) before we can say it has "no" coverage. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The plane had a maximum takeoff weight of 15,332 lb. Per WP:AIRCRASH, planes are considered "light aircraft" if they have "maximum gross weights under 12,500 lb". This was a small commercial airliner and not a light aircraft. Six people were killed and the plane was destroyed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage in reliable sources about the crash of United Express Flight 2415 is readily available here and here and here and here. It was discussed months later here and here. It was discussed four years later in an article about a similar crash here (hidden behind a pay wall, but the description is there). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given the additional information found, I've struck my call for deletion - I'm still not sure it's worthy of inclusion, but there's certainly enough to not delete it, which is enough for me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources that have been found. Lugnuts (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets WP:GNG per the evidence kindly provided by Cullen³²⁸ — CharlieEchoTango — 07:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant hoax. I worship the walrus, myself, and I reject this heresy. Narhwalions are people who believe the Narwhals should be worshipped. They follow the religion Narwhalionism. Narwhalions do believe that the Narwhals are holy creatures. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Narwhalions[edit]

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

contested Prod, original Prod reasoning: "WP:NOT, appears to be a religion made up one day, no indication it is notable." In addition to the original reasoning, I looked and could not find any sources that discuss this religion. GB fan 19:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for "religions" made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Google returns nothing. Link on article page goes nowhere. Unverifiable WP:V and not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the prodder, I can't really argue with the nominating rationale. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Narwhalionism per WP:NAMING and then delete for being WP:MADEUP. Pburka (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this rubbish has already been speedy deleted as a hoax once today. 20:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Airlines Flight 421[edit]

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

Hull loss but without fatalities. Not Notable per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS William 18:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. - William 18:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. - William 18:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. - William 18:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - WP:AIRCRASH is pretty confusing, as it has different sections, one of which has the list of bullet points ANDed together, the next one, which I believe applies here, has the same bullet points ORed together like this: "For airline and large civil aircraft, a listing of notable aircraft incidents and accidents, where appropriate. Accidents or incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if:

The accident was fatal to humans; or
The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or ...."

and since there was hull loss on an airline's airliner, this is by definition notable (as reason would dictate). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I think AIRCRASH has quite a lot to answer for. Reading it again with all your comments, I think what it's trying to say is that hull losses are likely notable enough for a mention in an aircraft type article (at least a list or count of such crashes, with places and dates), but more is needed for a single-crash article. But that is reading between the lines of rivets. So you guys are right, notable is being used in different ways. So Merge to Douglas DC-8. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You think all hull losses are notable. Picking a commercial jet at random, the DC-9, has experienced 131 hull losses[12] of which I counted nearly half(64) involved no fatalities at all. Are you saying all these crashes are notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I'm not saying a hull loss with no fatalities can't be notable but what on a case by case basis makes a crash historic? This crash doesn't do it.- William 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After a lot of discussion aircrash is about notability for aircraft type (and airline/airport) articles and the subject still has to meet normal notability requirements as a stand-alone article. WP:AIRCRASH has long since avoided re-defining the standard notability standards for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunatly lots of hull losses occur; there doesn't need to be an article on every one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Douglas DC-8 Reading WP:AIRCRAFT, the essay technically confuses the Wikipedia terms "prominence", which refers to content; and "notability", which refers to stand-alone articles. As per the essay, and given that this was an airline plane, this accident is prominent for aircraft articles, but not notable as a stand-alone article. Given editorial discretion in how much of this article is to be merged, and the long list of prominent DC-8 accidents, editors may choose to split the DC-8 article to accommodate this material. Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge into the DC-8 article. Consideration could be given to creating a List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8 given the number of hull losses. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment needs more work and linking to current articles but List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8 has been created. MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This incident did not result in any deaths nor in any change of policy or technology. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8. I disagree with Boneyard90 since the ASN page (which is the only "source" for the content) says "PROBABLE CAUSE: Left elevator geared tab drive arm assemblies and elevator gust lock crank assembly had failed." Probably a bunch of recommendations issued because of that. However, for this 34-year old accident, an editor fluent in both Japanese and English has got to put a lot work into finding a copy of the report, and other potential sources ("Flight International 14.05.1977") from way back then. When and if someone was willing to do that, and makes a stand alone article, I think it will be easy to recognize as notable. But there is no point having a bunch of stubs for all DC-8 hull losses. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we're all agreed, then - it looks to me as if we all agree there's no special reason for a page just on this one hull loss? And there's now a list for it to live on, so we can delete/merge this page, can't we? Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive Analysis[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. Search returns many hits because the page title has a very general meaning, but no reliable sources covering the specific topic of the article. The references given also do not appear to be appropriate sources. Prod tag was removed; COI suspected. --Lambiam 18:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're here to help you Make Money Fast. But we aren't going to tell you how in the article, you have to pay for the seminar: The intention of comprehensive analysis is to resolve long-standing problems within the equities and derivative markets. Namely, it helps conservative and growth-oriented investors and traders continually generate income or cash flow in their portfolio every single month, while simultaneously reduce excessive risk, and potentially realize higher-than-average annual returns. It also helps traders and value investors identify optimal investment opportunities that exist within the markets every day, but are otherwise difficult, if not impossible, to identify manually, or, with single-theory approaches, such as fundamental, technical, or derivative analysis. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, basically Advertising. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potion IVI[edit]

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

Per WP:PRODUCT; a product should not have its own article, unless the producer is notable. Even if, it should be merged into the article about the company that produces it. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 17:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator is misreading policy, a product that is produced by a company that is not notable may have an article if the product itself is notable. That said, I don't see much evidence that this product is notable. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. I found this passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OILiQuidzz[edit]

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

Prod removed by author, concern was "No reliable sources to show notability." I do not feel that any of the sources added by the author are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was spatially and temporally deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey B. Larson[edit]

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

Fails general notability criteria and WP:BIO; no evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Poorly referenced for at least 3 years now without improvement. As best I can tell, this individual is known only for his idiosyncratic beliefs about physics, which do not notable as they don't seem to have been covered or addressed by any independent, reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 16:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, he doesn't seem notable at all except among a few crackpots for his "theory" (he appears to have no physics background). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another guy who's gone and solved everything leaving nothing for physicists to do. We need to silence him now before the WP:TRUTH gets out. N^oformation ^Talk 18:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and MastCell. Agricolae (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too few sources to make a notable crank. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I'm not voting on this as I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to gauge just how cranky this man's theories were. But for the article to be in this undeveloped state after FIVE YEARS suggests that it isn't going to get any better.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything for "North Pacific Publishers", who published Larson's books, that isn't one of Larson's books. I suspect they're self-published, meaning we just have someone who self-published some books. Hardly notable. 86.178.194.188 (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but brief mentions of his book titles found in secondary sources, not enough notability for his own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All four references are by the person in question, not about him. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youri Aramin Kemp[edit]

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

Autobiographical article about a blogger of limited notability. No significant coverage in reliable sources, Google search on the name only shows 62 unique results, mainly social media and unreliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep it up, sometimes articles from journalists and sources start from very unusual places. For example, the market size may not be sizeable, but the reach and impact is. A Journalist and Economist from the USA or UK may have more relevance than an Economist and Journalist from The Caribbean. But in each circumstance, they hold relevance relative to scale in their jurisdictions.

This should be taken into consideration most certainly as it pertains to areas of geography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global View Today (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we have removed the self published blog from the entry to make it more suitable to Wiki guidelines. But all other information sources are contained and remain! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global View Today (talk • contribs) 16:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — Global View Today (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Global View Today, we need some references about the subject, not articles by him. Also, your username needs to be changed; it cannot represent a group (or a blog in this case). I've left you a link on your user talk page that tells you how to do this. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 01:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about the subject in reliable sources. The article contains three references which are articles by Kemp. The fourth mystifies me as it is neither by Kemp, nor mentions Kemp and doesn't verify anything in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUN SYSTEM[edit]

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

How-to-guide ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 13:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NOT and I wouldn't be surprised if it also turned out to be a copyright violation. Pichpich (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTGUIDE. Nothing here to salvage. Pburka (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On WT:CSD, there has been a long-standing suggestion that we have an "unsalveagble WP:NOT violation" criteria. This is why! —Tom Morris (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A software instruction manual is not an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTMANUAL. Probable WP:SNOW. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTGUIDE This is nothing like an encyclopedia article.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki, Blogs, Google+ and YouTube for Education[edit]

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

Personal essay. The first sentence tells everything. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 13:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to imagine how this title can lead to anything resembling an encyclopedia article. Unless perhaps it's the name of a band. Pichpich (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A3. Pburka (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. shoulda had a G3. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armada Game at Sea[edit]

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

Delete Article was tagged with prod, then tagged with tagged as speedy delete G3 which was declined. This is an article about a board game but there's no indication that the game exists outside the editor's imagination. Pichpich (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:V, WP:MADEUP. Pburka (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The game is probably made up. I did a search at this website^[1] and was unable to find a game matching that described in the article.- William 16:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Obvious hoax per search in quotes. HurricaneFan 25 18:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M.Z.Azizi[edit]

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

This reads a lot like a CV, and there doesn't seem to be anything under WP:BIO that he might qualify as. I couldn't find any sources in Google News or Google Books. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline speedy WP:CSD#A7. Pburka (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Keb25 (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of female heavy metal singers. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of female heavy metal singers by genre[edit]

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

I doubt that this list is particularly useful, as we already have List of female heavy metal singers, and most of the singers listed have been involved in more than just one of the listed genres. Simone (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any un-duplicated entries and redirect to List of female heavy metal singers.Polyamorph (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the difficulty of sorting out already complex heavy metal sub-genres to determine which singer belongs to which category, the list is completely useless. I agree with merging the eventual new content with List of female heavy metal singers. Lewismaster (talk)

If there is nothing useful to be merged then my comment can be read as simply redirect. Regards Polyamorph (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Duplication, but likely search-term. Lugnuts (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Semi-salted (create=autoconfirmed) for a month due to the high probability of sockpuppets trying to recreate it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flintzel Diao[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC; article is filled with false info relating labels she was never signed to Caldorwards4 (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SPAM, Wikipedia is not a fansite. - DonCalo (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't really understand what you say, but the article has really the thought of relevance of the personal life of Flintzel Diao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HereToHelpAlways (talk • contribs) 09:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. I do believe in HereToHelpAlways you might say that this is a SPAM but the whole truth is present in the article. Why does it need to be deleted? - SparksFlyBaby (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Above users are sockpuppets and have been blocked --Caldorwards4 (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Awards that can't be verified. Just released album. No significant, reliable sources. Bgwhite (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the unverifiable content (awards she's won in 2012, Grammys she's declined, etc) and what's left is a couple lines about her childhood and her social network links. ScottSteiner ✍ 07:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added her first single for same reasons. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I restored ScottSteiner's version, removing a lot of unsourced/unencyclopedic content as well as content sourced to Youtube, last.fm and other non-reliable sources. No significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. --bonadea contributions talk 13:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - non-notable vanispamcruftisement by subject or somebody impersonating her. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I considered a redirect per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz put felt that it was not appropriate given the very limited coverage of her in Levi's article. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercede Johnston[edit]

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

Having a blog critical of Sarah Palin and her family and doing one interview and photospread in one magazine does not confer sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article KeptSouth (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A gossipy article about a person whose main claim to "fame" is spreading malicious gossip about someone related to someone famous. That, plus she's physically attractive enough to pose nude in a well-known magazine. Not at all notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Fails WP:GNG. - DonCalo (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet notability criteria -- fdewaele, 2 October 2011, 21:38 CET.

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet notability guidelines.--JayJasper (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Levi Johnston. Has become enough of a public spectacle to be a plausible search term, visibility persisting beyond her Playboy press splash. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a trace of any notability.Vincelord (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feast of the Guardian Angels[edit]

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

Not likely to ever have much information; the Catholic Encyclopedia article is also very short and any additional information can easily fit into a section in the main Guardian angel article PaulGS (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this topic deserved a 950 word article in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (which was printed on paper), then surely it is worthy of an article on Wikipedia. I believe that the existence of an article on a topic in another notable encyclopedia pretty much demonstrates notability here. In addition, this feast is discussed in other books such as Saints and Feast Days, 30 Ten-Minute Prayer Celebrations for Young Children, The pulpit orator: containing, for each Sunday of the year, seven elaborate skeleton sermons, Volumes 4-5, Manual of Christian Doctrine, The Oxford dictionary of saints and many other reliable sources on the history of Roman Catholic observances. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—per Cullen328. anyone up for a WP:CATH? i will try to find time soon, but feel free to pitch in.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from WP:CATH notability, "not likely to ever have much information" is not a valid reason for deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to guardian angel as lacking independent notability. As a rule we do not have articles on saint's commemorations unless there is something we can say about holiday observances (e.g. St Piran's Day). Mangoe (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seriously, you propose to delete this article on 2 October? Yes, it's one of the minor feasts of the Catholic Church but it is still an official feast by papal decree. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existence of this type of article does the encyclopedia, as reference site, no harm at all. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a valid article for an encyclopaedia. The fact it's short is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything above. St Anselm (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a feast of the church that was celebrated in a large number of places. It deserves an entry of its own. Oh and it had an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia. While this doesn't guarantee that it's notable - it really should mean that lack of notability should be proved. Short article is not part of that. JASpencer (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. What is there to be said about this feast that can't be said in a section in the Guardian Angel article? The Catholic Encyclopedia article is mainly on the liturgical history of the feast, which probably isn't of that much interest to the general reader. I'm certainly not opposed to having an article on this particular feast if there's enough information about it out there, but this isn't Christmas or Easter or St. Patrick's Day we're talking about. We have an article on St. Thomas Aquinas, which is appropriate, but we don't have one on Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, because there's nothing about his feast day that can't easily be summarized and put in the article on him. I don't see this article as ever being more than a paragraph or two, and every bit of that information can be (and should be) added to a section in the Guardian angel article. Also, since there's not that much to be said about this feast, it makes the user read through two articles, instead of links going to Guardian angel and allowing them to read all about the topic, instead of getting a very short article on the feast and then having to go to the main article. PaulGS (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that these are not one but two different topics, that a notable paper encyclopedia has already determined that this specific topic is notable, that other reliable sources discuss this topic separately from the broader topic of guardian angels, that some of those reliable sources have been identified in this debate, and that this encyclopedia is not printed on paper and therefore has no need to constrain its coverage of notable topics. What objective criteria do you use, PaulGS, to determine what is of "interest" to the "general reader", and how do you define that type of reader when editing an encyclopedia that now has nearly 4 million articles? No "general reader" can read them all, but I very much doubt if any such reader would be offended if encountering this article in a random search. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we are required to have an article on the subject just because the CE does. The CE article is really no different from the history that could be written about any kalendar commemoration, and that's all it has; the other sources listed here are either irrelevant (the children's book) or give liturgical information of the same ilk as that of any other saints day. As a rule we have written articles on these holidays when there is material beyond this, generally in the form of descriptions of secular celebrations. Here I see no evidence that there's anything beyond the usual liturgical propers. Mangoe (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's now much better. I'm still not quite sure it's a notable-enough feast to have its own article, since most saints' days don't, and might be better suited to be a section of the Guardian Angel article, but with the additional information and sources added, I'm much more okay with keeping it. PaulGS (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 02:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full Tilt (novel)[edit]

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

This article is a mess, barely (if at all) remarkable, in my opinion. Serious cleanup would be necessary by an author who is familiar with this book. The article has been tagged with cleanup tags however no substancial effort has been made Petiatil^»Talk 03:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book has been discussed in reliable sources here and here and here and here and here and here. In addition, the book won at least 20 awards. If the current version of the article has shortcomings, then it should be improved through the normal editing process. Deletion is not the solution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added a couple of references to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—per Cullen328 and WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~~this was just speedily kept four hours ago! what's different now?~~ nominator even admits the purpose is cleanup rather than satisfaction of gng.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the recent speedy keep was procedural; the nominator had inadvertently omitted to supply a deletion reason, which per Wikipedia:Speedy_keep#Applicability is a reason for speedily keeping. That shouldn't affect this nomination. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ah, just so. i'm sorry about mentioning that without having taken the time to understand the salient point in the closing of the first nomination.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for the ~~strikeout~~ I'll leave my comment intact in case anyone else wonders what's going on with the swift re-nomination! Tonywalton ^Talk 22:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So-called references show that the book is not notable and most of them are not reliable third party sources. - DonCalo (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

query—i'd really like to be able to take your comment seriously, but without more detail, i don't see how i can. would you mind explaining which of the sources Cullen328 listed above are not reliable and which are not third-party and why? the only one there that's not third party is the list of awards that the book has won, which is on the author's website, but each and every one of these awards is independently verifiable and i'm assuming that Cullen328 just meant that one link as shorthand. also, would you mind explaining what you mean when you say that the "references show that the book is not notable"? how could that happen, that they *show* it's not notable?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment aren't you having your cake and eating it there, DonCalo? Either the references are unreliable and"so-called" (in which case they can't be used to "prove" anything) or they're probative, in which case they aren't unreliable. And even if they are reliable, it beats me how a reference can prove non-notability. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cullen328. "Being a mess" isn't sufficient reason to delete an article (which isn't IMV that much of a mess anyway and which I see has already been appropriately tagged with {{Plot}} since 2009). Tonywalton ^Talk 21:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda and Kai (book)[edit]

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

Delete Newly published children's book. Given the username, it's quite likely that the article was written by Richard Koscher and there's no indication that the book meets our threshold for inclusion. Pichpich (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Yes, I the author posted this, however this IS relevant. It IS based on Hans Christian Andersen's The Snow Queen. As a writer, I would check Wikipedia if such books exists before writing. Therefore it's useful information and based on Hans Christian Andersen "The Snow Queen". Since when can't the author post relevant information? I doubt that a stranger wrote the write up for Amy Winehouse's page. (It was her agent approved by her) Here is also an Article about me talking about this book. If you need anything please let me know. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoscher (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete. Blatant spamming and conflict of interest. - DonCalo (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't keep an article about a book because the author, who has a fundamental conflict of interest, sees the article as "useful". We require significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, which are lacking here. The short, tragic life of Amy Winehouse was discussed in great detail in countless reliable sources, so there is no comparison between the topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete It is fascinating that a hard working person who worked over three year on this film script (beside being a single dad and has a regular job) and than another year for this children's book gets such negative Delete comments. Speedy Delete Seriously? The book is a fact, no? It's available as a hard cover book and on Amazon. A person from Disney even praised it! "My daughter really likes the book. She's even specially requested it a few times.Alec Fredericks, Character TD at Walt Disney Animation Studios" Do you seriously think I would post that on my site and go head to head with Disney if it weren't true? Should I send the book to any of you to verify? It has been in a reliable newssource... SORRY I am no Oprah, who owns her own news sources and just a little guy who's book release is published in a smaller Austrian local newspapers. (And it doesn't speak for you if you don't speak multiple languages as a "fact checker" or whatever you guys are. Not much of an educated person, I would add with one language under your belt) My point about useful is, when I started writing the script 3 years ago, i came here and checked who, what, where this movie/book was last produced. It's helpful to know it exists, no? What makes my wiki entree different from this one "The Snow Queen (book), a 2008 novel by Mercedes Lackey." I also have an ISBN number and I also have a real book published. And who if not I would need to enter it here? Maybe you can at least turn your negativity into a positive and help me. Because it makes no sense if one book can be shown here and the other one can't . Richard, Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoscher (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that it can be frustrating but let me point out a few things. First, nobody here is disputing the existence of the book, the genuineness of the comments of that Disney employee or the quality of the book. True, you're not Oprah Winfrey and that puts you at a disadvantage but it doesn't change the fact that neither yourself, your book nor your film project has received significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. The problem is that articles on Wikipedia are based on content attributable to a reliable, published source and this is why an ISBN number is not sufficient to construct an article. The piece in Kleine Zeitung doesn't provide much depth (I am able to read enough German to understand the gist of the article) and no depth whatsoever as far as the book is concerned. As for The Snow Queen (2008 novel), the fact is that at this stage of her career Mercedes Lackey could write a novel consisting of 2000 pages of gibberish and still generate tons of media coverage on which an article can be built. I'm not trying to be negative, I just think your book really fails the test of Wikipedia:Notability (books). Pichpich (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it more legit yet? It was in Future US's published Maximum PC magazine as well as in 65 Degrees Magazine And this article in the KLEINE ZEITUNG. How many do I need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoscher (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete MORE SOURCESPlease check those articles. Is it more legit yet? It was in Future US's published Maximum PC magazine as well as in 65 Degrees Magazine And this article in the KLEINE ZEITUNG The book is mentioned in the last 1/3 of the article if you don't speak German. How many more do I need? I just don't understand what makes my Gerda and Kai entry different from the The Snow Queen (book), a 2008 novel by Mercedes Lackey. I don't see any resources or articles on his page! Please advise. I would love to send you the book to review Rkoscher (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Richard Koscher[reply]
- The Maximum PC magazine one is preposterous. It's an article about ebooks in general but it happens to be illustrated using the ebook of Gerda and Kai. So why exactly did the art director of Maximum PC choose this book among all others? Because you happen to be the art director! And as far as I can tell, the 65 Degrees Magazine is a paid advertisement. Pichpich (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying to make a point of it being a real book. Pichpich. Who are you? Do you work for Disney? Would be nice if you would make yourself known. I make myself known. Do you work for Wikipedia? At least Cullen is helpful. Have you written a book Pichpich? Has it coverage on Wikipedia? I would like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoscher (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Wikipedia has no editorial board. Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff. Although you can contact founder Jimmy Wales, he is not responsible for individual articles or the daily operations. Wikipedia is written, edited, maintained, and almost completely operated by volunteers from around the world.
THAT MEANS So basically its ok to be bullied from peeps like pichpich and be deleted. It's his little show of power. He doesn't even reveal who he is! For all I know he could be an employee of Disney or Warner. Who are also attempting a Snow Queen Film. It's a fact that I published the book. Articles, Amazon and Online presence support this. AGAIN. I am happy to send everyone in doubt a copy! As a writer, I would WANT TO KNOW, if something like this exists in order to make an effort to even publish a book like this. This is NOT An Advertising or ARTICLE. It simply states that the book was published and the synopsis. I am NOT trying to upload something that is NOT real or Legit. Rkoscher (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Richard Koscher[reply]
- - As I said previously, nobody is disputing the fact that the book exists. Not that it matters but I don't work for Disney or Wikipedia (this is a volunteer project) and none of what I've written has ever been the subject of an article on Wikipedia. You might want to re-read Cullen's comment because we're both telling you the same thing: we wish you and your book all the best but Gerda and Kai does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) (and even if it did, you shouldn't be writing the article yourself). If you take the time to look at the contributions of Cullen328, DonCalo and myself, you'll probably realize that your Disney/Warner conspiracy theory doesn't make sense. Do you honestly feel that the book meets the notability requirements? Other articles on books with an ISBN are regularly deleted for failing to meet that threshold: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ghosts of Little Rock (ISBN 978-1427635600) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saved By A Poem: Fecha Feliz (ISBN 978-1452890500). Pichpich (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'FINAL WORDS Guys, do as you please. In closing I want to note that I don't think it's fair. I also think three (3) people shouldn't decide about something I have worked on since 2008. I am a fan of H.C Andersen. I have spend many years as a kid reading his stories. For the upmost respect to him, I extended his story. He never answered WHY the Snow Queen takes the kids for example and many other questions made me want to extend this classic tale. I spend the last 3 years of my life as a single dad to establish and publish a story, that now 3 people decide its NOT noteworthy. Not sure what makes you three so special but apparently I can't make my point and be bullied out. I don't know what else to add. Thanks for your time. Happy deleting. Rkoscher (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Richard Koscher[reply]

The point is not what is so special about us (there is nothing special), but what is so special about you that you are notable to deserve a Wikipedia entry. I am sorry, but frankly, there is little to nothing. - DonCalo (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is always difficult when it feels like your hard work is being trashed, but this fails WP:BK. Heywoodg ^talk 21:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, delete per comments above. Unfortunately the author (of the article and the book) has chosen to take this personally and to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy against both him and the book. The only "conspiracy" is one which sets the article against WP:COI, WP:NB, WP:SPAM and various bits of WP:NOT, particularly WP:SOAP and WP:PLOT. For what it's worth, the Kleine Zeitung reference might go some way to being enough of a third party reference for the author himself (I do read German) but definitely not for the book, whch is pretty much given a passing (and promotional) mention in the article. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Tonywalton here. I've participated in nearly 1000 AfD debates now, and I can assure

Rkoscher that nothing unusual or unfair is going on here, except that Rkoscher is taking things personally and claiming unfairness when none exists whatsoever. His book is being held to the same standards as any other book (or any other topic) which has been nominated for deletion. I recommend keeping and deleting roughly the same percentage of articles, and I make each decision individually based on the specific merits and shortcomings of each article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and appears to have WP:COI issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just to mention one point, Lackey's book is in 832 WorldCat libraries; this book is in zero. It's almost always an argument for deletion when someone compares an unknown work or career with a work or career of a famous person and says, "what's the difference?" DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Normally I think it's much better to not take into account the request ofthe subject of an article, but I consider this a special situation where the notability is so borderline and the subject's reasons for requesting deletion so reasonable, that I consider it a justifiable occasion & I think that goes for a redirect also. In the circumstances, I think having either would amount to harassing the subject. I'm going to courtesy blank the AfD also in a day or so. I'll leave it up to some other admin to consider courtesy blanking the deletion review. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian)[edit]

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

Listing on AfD per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 25. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the average English language Wikipedian (such as yours truly) is far from notable, this pioneering Vietnamese language Wikipedian has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as listed in the article, and is therefore notable. Google Translate helped me read the gist of two articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for whom that plan to vote deletion you guys should read this earlier discuss here. That's all my reasons to keep this article in this encyclopedia. For many that supported delete they either think Vietnamese people is not important or have nonsense reasons. However i will sum up all the points to the main points that express all of my strongly belief that this person is "absolutely" need to be keep. I have provided enough sources to prove the notability of the person if you can't prove those sources are unreliable then you have no reason to say this person is not notability. Plus the majority of articles in any Wikipedia are like some communes and villages that barely have any info in it and a lot of amateur sports players, writers, actors, actress, artist, local politician, random people who mentioned by the news like one... I can give infinite of names of people who will be forget in few years and then new people will replace them. I'm pretty sure for the most part, after their few years of fame went by nobody will ever remember them and what they did. To me personally Minh is a lot more notable than most people that have articles in here. As long as Wikipedia still there, which i don't think Wikipedia will ever die anyway. Wikipedia will become the greatest encyclopedia in mankind. So therefore Minh's contribution as a founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia will simply be remember always by the readers who wonder who is the founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia. So hundreds years or even thousands the name will live on forever. Don't underestimate the significant of other language version of Wikipedia. No one can argue that Jimmy Wales is notable simply because he founded English Wikipedia. It should hold the same thing for other founders of any other version of Wikipedia. If this person should be delete then so do millions of other articles should end up the same.Trongphu (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to tell me that people want to delete this because they have good faith? Or what do you mean exactly? I have a good faith too.Trongphu (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you that this article should be kept, Trongphu, and I admire your passion. However, reasonable people may disagree about this article. I notice on your own talk page that the subject of the article himself has expressed the opinion that he should be discussed in our Vietnamese Wikipedia article, rather than in a free-standing biography. The point being made by The Bushranger is that you should not assume that those who disagree with you think that Vietnamese topics are "not important" or that their arguments are "nonsense". Those are not considered persuasive arguments here. I too advise you to assume good faith of other editors, and I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let just say they have a good faith but still i feel like their reasons are not strong enough nor does it support their delete decision.Trongphu (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vietnamese Wikipedia article. - DonCalo (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article had been through AfD in the Vietnamese version of Wikipedia and was deleted. There are 2 fluff pieces in the Vietnamese press several years ago that basically came from the same source. DHN (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get fooled by the result of that voting, i got my detail explanations about the voting in Vietnamese Wikipedia here. By the way, this person has been the first and always has been supporting for deletion ever since i first started in Vietnamese Wikipedia. As far as my opinion goes, this person has some kind of intense problem with the article i wrote has its place on the Wikipedia.Trongphu (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Earth Wikipedian (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:BLP1E Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At DRV I had doubts because Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian) says "He started to contribute to Wikipedia in early 2003 but was not an official member until as 13 October, 2003" whereas Vietnamese Wikipedia says "Vietnamese Wikipedia initially went online in November 2002". This in itself would be a matter for editing rather than deletion unless it transpired that some of the underlying information was unreliable. However [13] explains the discrepancy in dates and [14] shows the initial admin appointments. So, the external sources seem to be confirmed by information on the Vietnamese Wikipedia itself; are not merely "fluff pieces"; and meet the general notability guidelines. Even if the corresponding article was deleted on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, that does not matter here. Thincat (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first article ever created in Vietnamese Wikipedia is the Internet Society article, [15], was created by a member which i'm guessing is not a Vietnamese Wikipedian. In link number 1 of User Thincat, clearly say that's the only article until main page was created by Minh in October 2003 then there were more created articles after the main page was created. So basically the created of the main page marked the official birth of Vietnamese Wikipedia. You can simply understand Vietnamese Wikipedia was initially open in December 2002 then (got abandoned until October 2003) but was not officially open until October 2003. And i do agree with Thincat, the correspond article got deleted in Vietnamese Wikipedia has nothing to do with this debate(despite the fact that i have explained why). Just forget about it and look at the reality and current time and reasonable reasons.Trongphu (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that it had been deleted in vi.wiki to show that the people who can read Vietnamese, who can understand the significance of the given sources, had determined that the person is still not notable enough. BTW, the author had also insisted on creating an article about me, the other early Vietnamese Wikipedian. However, my case is even more clear-cut since I have not given any interviews and thus there are no verifiable sources talking about me. DHN (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the people who can read Vietnamese so what? Their opinions are nothing more than any other members. Just because they can read Vietnamese doesn't mean they are absolutely correct, as i said many time they are just simply jealous of someone has an article on Wikipedia and they don't (my opinion of course). Prove to me that they have a neutral view of point. Not notable enough is an easiest excuse for someone to vote delete on any articles, anyone can use that excuse to vote delete for any articles that they don't like even though the articles have undeniable reliable sources. Plus let me remind you there are only about 10 members voted, it doesn't reflect the whole community opinion. There were just coincidence that many jealous people around at that time of voting taken place. Wanting to take a fair vote? Put it on the notice on the main page of Vietnamese Wikipedia and wait until we got like 40 or 50 votes just about the same amount of votes for many recently sysop voting (this is more important than the sysop voting as my opinion). If the majority voted delete then i will agree with you that the Vietnamese community doesn't accept this article but it has nothing to do English community though (i don't think the majority will vote delete anyway). We are like the 2 different worlds here with different ideas, opinions.Trongphu (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a ridiculous proposition. What's so special about this AfD entry that merits placement on the front page? DHN (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So many people can notice and take a vote on it and i didn't say it has to be merit or anything special it's just a notice. You can do whatever you want as long as it reached at least 40 votes then i will believe that's what the Vietnamese community wants. Otherwise the few votes don't say anything. Plus to me this is not simply just an AfD, this is an important debate voting, just as important as sysop voting, that's what you did to sysop voting, put it on the front page didn't you or someone else did?(i'm sure someone did) I can ask you the same question: What's so special about this the sysop voting that merits placement on the front page? Isn't sysop suppose to be not a big deal? If sysop voting can be notice at the front page so does the debate. By the way, this proposition is for Vietnamese Wikipedia not English Wikipedia, or anyone can do it if they can. In general, the more people vote = more opinions = more ideas = reflect the whole not minority = the more reliable and neutral of the issue.Trongphu (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the main page, I just rewrote it. In fact, Joakim Löfkvist wrote the first article and Vieilletortue had also edited by the time I found the site. See Talk:Vietnamese Wikipedia#Date of foundation for all the dates and details I could dig up. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isn't a vote for or against, due to COI. As I've already related to Trongphu, I personally don't think I'm notable enough for my own article, seeing as "Vietnamese Wikipedia" is still a stub. The 2–3 Vietnamese journalists who tried to interview me never seemed to get it – or take "no" as an answer – but as I detailed here, I didn't found the project in any way. I certainly helped, but then in that case, several key individuals from the next couple years would deserve articles too. Dụng, Joakim, and I were the first trio of sysops, while Mekong Bluesman was probably the most prolific non-sysop contributor. You won't find many sources for them, though, because those papers kept the focus on me, Blake Ross style. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Dụng, Joakim cases then it will be really hard since we have like no source outside of Wikipedia. Plus Dung seems to have intense problems with having any kind Wikipedians article on Wikipedia anyway. And for Joakim case, personally i think he doesn't contribute much at all despite the fact he wrote the "first" article in Vietnamese Wikipedia. He barely did anything (just look at the 135 edits he did, there are as well thousands of Vietnamese Wikidians are having more contributing). To me writing the first article in Vietnamese Wikipedia is nothing significant, it's just like any of other articles. The one that significant is the one who contribute a lot since its birth, created main page (personally i think creating the main page is the same as founding it, it was like dead before the main page was created anyway), building stuffs which i don't know in details and first sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser and many more...Trongphu (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not meant to insult Joakim or anything but well to me he is nothing more than any other normal users. (again it's just my opinion)Trongphu (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vietnamese Wikipedia. The subject appears to meet the letter of WP:GNG, with the debate largely falling as to whether the coverage is reliable. However, in cases of borderline notability in which the subject of the article has voiced an opinion that they prefer not to have an article (as is the case here), that person's opinion should be taken into account. Call it WP:IAR, WP:BLP1E, or whatever you wish, but a brief mention in the Vietnamese Wikipedia article just seems to me to be the correct amount of coverage here. VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO? Did he directly say he doesn't want to have an article here? He obviously said this is vote for nor against it? Read his words carefully please. I'm guessing you guys have no idea how the thinking of some humble and great people work. They will never admit that they did anything good nor do they care if they are famous. Does that change the fact that they should deserve the honors? No it doesn't change anything. I want to give them what they deserve. You can't force them to say yes so we can have an article about them in here. They are just too humble to say yes.Trongphu (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give you an great example of someone you will know for sure. I remember watching a document about George Washington. He was saying something to someone else that promoted him to something important i can't remember. He, George Washington, said something like he doesn't deserve the honor or trusted from people nor did he accomplish anything and even if he did it's because the help of others. See that? That's how a great person is, I'm really respect and admire those people. And yea you can as well do as what George Washington wish by not give him any credits? Go ahead and merge his article into United States article. In this situation it's exactly the same thing. A great person doesn't want to admit or receive credits for what they did but someone else will acknowledge it for them. I will the one who do that. Again the main subject opinion should not be taken into account because it doesn't determine the notability of the person, NOT AT ALL.Trongphu (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus there is no such rule that say you can't write about someone else that obviously notable enough when that person doesn't want to. Example Albert Einstein said he doesn't want to have an article on Wikipedia so is that mean no one can write about him?Trongphu (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, yes, the subject said they did not think they were notable, here on your talk page (though to be fair, he also mentions that he does not think his opinion is relevant). As I said, I think the subject's opinion should be taken into account in cases of borderline notability. The examples you suggested would not be considered borderline. VQuakr (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No i doubt it. This is the only sentence that has anything to do with his opinion about whether or not to delete "But I hope you understand if I personally disagree." He disagreed doesn't mean he wants his article to be delete, this simply means he doesn't want to admit that he accomplish anything. Since there are no rule about subject's opinion should be considered to determine whether or not it should be delete so therefore your reasons is invalid. Plus here is a key point, he did in fact hint that other people can decide and do whatever is right about his article, he doesn't care but I DO. As my perspective my examples are totally relevant. Albert Einstein is OF COURSE a lot a lot more famous than him, Minh, but so what? We are not comparing their notability. The question is does that person notability enough to have an article on here, answer me that question? That's what we should be really getting at not other circumstances.Trongphu (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ( or redirect to Vietnamese Wikipedia ): No matter how many news sources cover the subject, being a Wikipedian just isn't a valid claim to notability for a biography. There are many people who have translated MediaWiki interfaces into many languages, even our esteemed tech guru User:Brion( Brion Vibber ), who has considerable media coverage, is redirected to MediaWiki. --Versa geek 15:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea i think Jimmy Wales is a Wikipedian too, you can as well delete him. Wait i know what you're going to say. Jimmy Wales is more famous? Duh of course he is, i think so too. Again let me reminding you we are not comparing their notability, we are looking at whether or not they are notability enough. Plus your point can cause many people to believe that you have some problems with Wikipedian despite the fact that you are one of them yourself. So if they accomplish something then it's because that they are Wikipedians they can't have an article here?? Don't try to compare User:Brion to Minh. There is a big different between a translator and a founder. You think all you do is translate then boom, a miracle came out then here you go with a new version of Wikipedia (sounds like fairy tale to me, this is reality). I don't know details about the process but i know for sure it involves more than just translating like organizing stuffs, make rules, become a symbol head of Vietnamese Wikipedia on news... (because of this many new members registered so therefore further improve Vietnamese Wikipedia better) Without him Vietnamese Wikipedia won't be as decent as we are right now. I can assure you that Minh contribute more than Brion guy including the fact he didn't get pay a single cent. Again we are not comparing who contribute better than whom. Even if Minh contribute less than Brion guy so what? What made him notability is he is a founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia, despite the fact that he didn't make the first edit but he is considered by most people that he is a founder or one of the founders. I think many years from now hundreds or thousands years as long as Wikipedia still alive (i don't think Wikipedia is going to die anyway so to me it will live on FOREVER) his name, Minh, will always be remember as one a founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia, my point right here can prove that he will be remember longer than most of the articles about other people. I'm confident to say for the majority of the articles about other people, in 10 years at max no one will remember about them and what they did.Trongphu (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At my bottom line, i feel like you're pretty stubborn. Never admit that you are wrong. I'm not saying i'm right or anything. I could be wrong despite the fact that i believe i'm right but i don't deny the possibilities of me being wrong. I'm glad and ready to know when to stop if someone has enough reasonable proofs to prove me wrong. I know that you have hatred or maybe just unfavor toward me due to fact that i overturn your speedy deletion, which is pretty shame as a sysop (i wouldn't be ashamed if i was you, everyone made mistake, no one is perfect). I know you're not going to admit it but well in your heart just know don't let the hatred harm your personality. You vote delete because you hate me or because you really think it does deserve it? I'm fine with whatever but well i'm sure you just want the best for Wikipedia, and have a lot of trusted from many people otherwise you can't be a sysop. (i want the best for Wikipedia too)My point is don't let a issue turn you turn good to bad. Well after all i never admit that i'm 100% right nor i ever said that anyone need to listen to me. I did everything as what i believe in and won't ever give up until someone prove...Trongphu (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea forgot to mention that Jimmy is overall a lot notable then Minh but well there are few things Minh has more impact than Jimmy. To us, Vietnamese people (not including jealous people), Minh of course play a more significant role than Jimmy. Minh is the youngest bureaucrats ever in any Wiki projects, less than 18 years old, or for sure of one of the youngest. Plus his sysop role also reflect a remarkable accomplishment too, at the age of 16.(i know there some sysop that became sysops at age of 16). In term of that, Minh is maybe better than Jimmy. They are not quite relevant, anyway just an example of some accomplish that most people can't do, we should not compare them anyway.Trongphu (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After ensuring that I was reading a Wikipedia article and not a PR piece....sorry, I'm not seeing the significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Looks like two solid sources. Barely passes WP:N, but passes it does seem to. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:BLP1E Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be the one that reconsider about your redirect vote Seb. This person is not notable just because only one event. He was interviewed and mentioned by the biggest Vietnamese news many times not once. Don't forget that his credit as a founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia will be lasting for hundreds or thousands of years as long as Wikipedia still alive. (read above for more info).Trongphu (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, dude. I just put {{refimprove}} up again — you give one source that talks about his fame (that one source has been put online by two webpages), and that's what you call "several"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say that I don't think WP:BLP1E applies here. Founding something large and continuing to work on it is rarely a "single event". The question is coverage and he seems to have it (just barely, but still). Hobit (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there is a little too much blowing sunshine up his a*** for my liking, the subject is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia as a founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia who has attracted some media attention. Deterence ^Talk 01:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:BLP1E Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to and mention in Vietnamese Wikipedia, per WP:BLP1E. He hasn't done anything notable outside of vi.wikipedia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It has nothing to do with the notability of the person. Plus he is also a sysop and bureaucrat of vi.wiktionary and played somewhat important role in other wiki projects. By using your logic i can say Jimmy is not notable since "He hasn't done anything notable outside of English wikis. You should not look at the quantity (like how many notable things they did) but look at how much it's going to impact mankind in any part of the world. As i explained in details above, Vietnamese Wikipedia is going to have a profound lasting impact in the world especially in a country, where Wikipedia is an only source, like Vietnam.Trongphu (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vietnamese Wikipedia. This article is a very weak biography. Much more content should be present at Vietnamese Wikipedia before the subject has a stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another irrelevant reason to redirect. The Vietnamese Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the founder, Minh, at all. Weak biography is not a valid reason to say this person is not notable.Trongphu (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The person is "known for contributing to the Vietnamese Wikipedia", and yet Vietnamese Wikipedia makes no mention of him? This says that the person is not notable. Perhaps it can be fixed by improving Vietnamese Wikipedia. "The Vietnamese Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the founder, Minh, at all." Perhaps you mis-typed? If not, then you are saying the person is not notable even for Vietnamese Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why so many people just keep looking at other random reasons to try to delete this? The key point here is is this person notable enough? If no one can prove the sources are unreliable then the result is pretty obvious but then people just made up a lot of other reasons have nothing to do with the article itself. Please think and read carefully before you guys vote.Trongphu (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources alone are not sufficient for a stand alone article. See WP:BIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to step back. Don't accuse people of "not thinking" just because they disagree with you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did i? Don't accuse me of accusing people when you didn't understand my words. I think i have a right to express my opinion on other people that i feel like they don't have reasonable reasons. You are dictator? Who give you power to tell me to step back? And i think you should find some other better proofs to back up your vote otherwise i don't think it will be valid enough here.Trongphu (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As an original person who requested a speedy. — Bill william compton^Talk 02:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another not valid reason, i think your speedy is being overturned which proven that your reason is invalid by now.Trongphu (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to you to decide whether a !voter's rationale is valid or not and I suggest you knock it off. All you're doing is making other users !vote "delete" in an attempt to spite you for calling names and belittling opinions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think i have a freedom to express my opinion to whether or not they are rational. And if they vote "delete" because they can't argue with me with reasonable discussion which proven to me and everyone that they have short temper and are not trusted since their point of view can be easily distracted by other factor such as unable to provide rational discussion and started hatred toward someone has more reasonable ideas, also can be called bias. Listen now i never say i'm 100% correct but if you can't prove me wrong then... Tell you what even if i lose in this debate but to me i have won a victory to proven a rotten system that have too many people around who can't provide the rational reasons nor can they back up their statement, they just vote then ran away and avoid responsibility. They have power to vote, Power goes with responsibility. Their votes are hatred votes not rational votes.Trongphu (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a battle, and if you don't want to take my advice, it's on you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did i ever say this is a battle? This is a discussion place where everyone is free to talk.(how many times i need to confirm my intention as a peacefully contributor who wants to fight for the right?) I'm welcome everyone to debate it's up to them whether or not they respond, i'm always ready to listen and change if they can prove me wrong as i said a billion times (i know i exaggerated it). "it's on you", yea it is, i have been fighting this for a long time now with a large amount of time being consumed by discussion mainly by me. I think i can endure the rest, probably this discussion will end in a week or 2 at max. When i said i will fight to the end that's mean i will.Trongphu (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Bill william compton's reason for voting for Delete is simply nonsensical. Seriously, what does "As an original person who requested a speedy" even mean? Deterence ^Talk 04:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you say that it's "not 'a' valid reason". If I was the one who nominated it for speedy citing a criteria of "unremarkable person" then I think it's pretty much obvious that what my rationale is. Being a Wikipedia user doesn't make this user notable enough. And this is not a debate, so I'm not going to fall in any escalating argument. — Bill william compton^Talk 10:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You nomination is being overturned and that is a strong proof of saying your point of view is wrong, consider by many. And this is a debate. I think you have to provide a legit reason not just random reason according to your bias opinion.Trongphu (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vietnamese Wikipedia, leaving content in the history to be merged. I'm really on the fence as to keep/delete, and I see how this is a debatable case as far as notability goes. As Minh himself has suggested merging the content to the article about vi.wiki, it seems the best compromise that should make everyone equally (un)happy. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contribution to Wikipedia should never be counted as grounds for notability alone, nor should project-internal "achievements" such as being the youngest sysop, the first sysop on project X, or whatever else; even mentioning such pieces of trivia reeks of project-internal navel gazing. One or two news reports mentioning this person in the context of "who are the people behind..." reports doesn't constitute significant coverage of the person as a subject in its own right; it's still basically just coverage of the project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"who are the people behind..." is just one of the news he is being mentioned, there are many interviewed and news talk specific about him not just a coverage of the project. Let me remind you he is not notably because he is the youngest of any kind. He is notably because he is considered one of the founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia(he is considered by many to be the most important role), Read many discussion above for details of how much Vietnamese Wikipedia impact Vietnam society. As i said a billion time (i know i exaggerated it), as long as Wikipedia still live his name will always be remember by the Vietnamese people who wonder he found the Vietnamese Wikipedia. (i don't think Wikipedia is going to die anyway so his name will live on forever). This point proved that he is a lot more notable than the majority of people who have an article which will be forgotten in like few years or 10 years max.Trongphu (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even close to an encyclopedically notable biography in my view. "Youngest age for any bureaucrat" and "one of the youngest sysops" are simply not claims of notability for any biography regardless of which wiki he might work on. Quale (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Youngest age for any bureaucrat" and "one of the youngest sysops" are not the reason why he is notable. He is famous because he is a founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia. Read many discussion above for details of how much Vietnamese Wikipedia impact Vietnam society.Trongphu (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:BLP1E, no evidence this can be expanded in an notable biographic profile. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me evidence that it can not expand into a notable biographic profile? Don't try to predict future since you are not a prophecy.Trongphu (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vietnamese Wikipedia, although even that is slightly perverse given that article doesn't actually mention him at all; one would have thought if a subject's has only one claim of notability, it would be mentioned in the article about that subject. Still, there is no reason why he could not be mentioned there. Certainly, the subject doesn't pass the bar for a stand-alone article (as he even admits himself). Black Kite (t) (c) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and perhaps Merge relevant content. While one could make the argument that he may meet the WP:GNG by a hair, it seems to make more sense to redirect and work on the article about the Vietnamese Wikipedia for now. Particularly in light of the comments made by the subject of the article, who seems to be a very intelligent and reasonable person. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Check WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO & WP:NPF. He fails to meet any of the Notability guidelines as far as i can see. Just because he was a force in creating the Vietnamese Wikipedia, does not make him notable. Dusty777 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can use the same logic as you did to prove any articles not notable. "just because Jimmy Wales was a force in creating the English Wikipedia, does not make him notable". (i know he created the whole system but technically he only involves in English wiki).Trongphu (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales created multiple sites, he formed the Wikimedia Foundation. He did the ground work for almost every Wiki on the net. Not only that, he also has collected numerous awards. You cannot say that the logic i used fits with Jimmy. Dusty777 (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, like most Wikipedians. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'like most Wikipedians duh? Of course most Wikipedians are not notable enough to have an article here but this person is not part of the "most Wikipedians". Did you even bother to read the argument and info before you vote?Trongphu (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Navel-gazing. Even Mxn himself says that he doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say redirect, but seriously.... who is going to actually look it up? Having sources doesn't mean notable. I have gone through every criteria we have for notability of individuals, and I can't find anything that the subject qualifies under. Trusilver 22:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N? Certainly looks to meet the letter of that. Hobit (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vietnamese Wikipedia, merging any relevant content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vietnamese Wikipedia. Technically he possibly meets the letter of WP:GNG, but common sense would seem to suggest that what little content we have on him would be better covered in the wider article since it all relates to that. If he becomes notable for something else in the future we can split back out then. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:BASIC with [16] and [17]. To a lesser extent, this article also qualifies notability. Perhaps there are more reliable sources available. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, not notable as an early Wikipedia editor for one of the hundreds of Wikipedias. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Looking through the discussion I see several people saying he does not meet the notability guidelines, even though he seems to meet the letter of it. I suspect the underlying reason behind is that this concerns a wikipedian, one of us. Although not codified in policy as far as I know, Jimbo said in his statement of principles: "The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward, not inward at the Wikipedia itself". I fully agree with this sentiment and taking also into account the opinion from User:Mxn, wp:BLP1E and wp:PERMASTUB I think it best to redirect this article. Yoenit (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the event the article is redirected to Vietnamese Wikipedia, it would be prudent to also merge information from this article "Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian)" into the Vietnamese Wikipedia article. The topic of this article does indeed pass WP:GNG per the availability of reliable sources, and it would be functional to include it, along with the references, in the Vietnamese Wikipedia article. I stand by my "keep" rationale above that this topic's notability qualifies its inclusion as a stand-alone article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To split hairs a bit, the original target of that rule seems to have been the kind of content that we now house at the Meta-Wiki. At the time, the Phase II software didn't support a Wikipedia: namespace, and talk pages were subpages of actual articles, so we had to be careful not to blur the lines between the encyclopedia and project-related discussions. Notice how "Wikipedia" was basically what Wikipedia:About is today. But thanks for posting that link; I hadn't encountered the principles before. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 18:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is marginally notable at best and in his own opinion does not deserve an article. While the subjects opinion is not normally a criteria, when we have a marginally notable person who states they do not want an article, I see no reason to not honor that. GB fan 12:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect to his notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability and coverage in reliable sources. BTW, subject seems like a great contributor. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain that? On the face of it we've got solid reliable sources--two newspaper articles solely on the subject. I'm curious why you don't find them reliable or enough for the GNG. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:ANYBIO. Two newspaper articles does not make him notable enough to qualify for WP:GNG. Dusty777 (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain that? First of all, note that ANYBIO defers to the GNG. Secondly the GNG does indicate that multiple reliable sources is enough. We've got that. Articles in major newspapers are generally regarded as outstanding RSes. And these are solely on the topic of the subject. The longer I'm here the more I think people don't quite understand our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because verifiability and notability are two separate things. Just because something has reliable sources doesn't automatically mean it's notable and worthy of an article. Trusilver 16:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd claim you are fundamentally misunderstanding what notability is on Wikipedia. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." There are a number of essays that do a good job describing the issue, but WP:JNN is pretty solid as is WP:NMO. Basically, you should largely check your opinion of what is "notable" and "not notable" at the door and use our notability guidelines instead. Of course they are just guidelines and so a matter of personal opinion should enter in a bit (WP:IAR). Hobit (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have taken "your" notability guidelines under advisement. I choose instead to use well-established guidelines such as WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, which this person does not pass. Trusilver 17:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that my Vietnamese is a bit rusty, but the Vietbao article isn't very long, and in both cases it is difficult (for me) to establish the notability and importance of those publications. I'll take the subject's word for it, that they are not so important that the GNG or any other guideline is satisfied by those two publications. Besides, two articles don't necessarily mean that a person is notable, but those points are brought up above already, and it is clear to me that there are different opinions there and different readings of our guidelines. I choose to fall on one side, and Hobit, I hope you enjoy the view from yours. I'll wave at you if you look my way. Best, Drmies (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Vietnamese Wikipedia, not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Has been speedily deleted (g3). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AZA-1[edit]

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

I can't find any ghits on this new star. Possible hoax. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 - blatant hoax. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Love Or Money (documentary)[edit]

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

Delete What you'll currently see is a one-line stub because I removed the rest of it which combined copyright, spam and verifiability concerns. After detailing this on the talk page, it occurred to me that even the existence of this film is unverifiable. The only Google hit for "For Love Or Money"+"Kim hopkins" is a Vimeo trailer and as far as I can tell, there's no release date, no distributor, no producer. We need verifiability and though I'm certain that this isn't a hoax, it shouldn't be treated much differently. Pichpich (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL this article about an unreleased documentary film that shares its name with several previous films. No discussion of this particular film in reliable sources. Article can be recreated if (and only if) the film gains notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON. When this film has its release and gets coverage, an article on it might then be considered. And while I might have suggeted userfication, the filmmaker is Kim Hopkins and the article author is User:Hopkinskim... so I have concerns toward WP:COI. Hoping that this newcomer will stick around, I left a note on the author's talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WWGB (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warm-Bodies[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable book, fails WP:NBOOK, no reliable independent references, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The novel has received multiple independent coverage in the Seattle Times[18], the Seattle Post Intelligencer[19], The Bellingham Herald[20], and Paste[21], and is being adapted into a major motion picture starring John Malkovich. dissolve ^talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Wadsworth constant[edit]

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

Keep per the fact that it shouldnt be considered made up if people have adopted the idea. History happens every second, if we report on it within an hour on Wikipedia it should not be considered false information.

Delete per WP:MADEUP Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everything was made up by someone, at some point; The 'MADE UP' argument is completely invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.104.141 (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP among other things. Zechola (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—not just made up, made up by people on reddit. shouldn't we have a special speedy category just for that?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons already mentioned, plus, it is original research that is unreferenced. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reasons as above. -- Mythe (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:MADEUP, who cares anyway? I've tagged it as a hoax. →Σ τ c. 02:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete— Made up see [22] --McSly (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE I believe in the "theory" of this constant. Research is still being done currently sure about it and the article will be updated if any research concludes inconclusive. I say for now we should let this be and see where it goes. Mind you the word "Noogie" was made up and then entered finally into the Webster's Dictionary a few years back. Not to mention that if there are any articles on "string theory" they too should be deleted as they are just theories and NOT proven true.

Now to test the Wadsworth Constant here and now. The above has 88 words so by the constant taking out the first 30% would leave me at "concludes inconclusive. I say for now we should let this be and see where it goes. Mind you the word "Noogie" was made up and then entered finally into the Webster's Dictionary a few years back. Not to mention that if there are any articles on "string theory" they too should be deleted as they are just theories and NOT proven true." Rounding this to the nearest logical point.

"I say for now we should let this be and see where it goes. Mind you the word "Noogie" was made up and then entered finally into the Webster's Dictionary a few years back. Not to mention that if there are any articles on "string theory" they too should be deleted as they are just theories and NOT proven true." HOLY CRAP IT WORKS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyfreeze (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should consider closing this discussion per WP:SNOWBALL? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, but the difference is that the examples you provided have received academic coverage. The Wadsworth constant hasn't. →Σ τ c. 02:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be correct however sir what do you define as academic? When Socrates created the "Academy" he had the idea of Question everything. Which is what we are doing now. I am a philosophy major and I might just write my thesis on this constant. Which in turn I believe would make it academic.

comment—the guy's cheerful and believes in his thingy, i'll give him that. this looks like it is about to become a freak show.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— I don't see why just because reddit created this that it merits deletion. Internet phenomena easily make their way onto wikipedia because they are well-known (see internet meme and Epic Fail.) It doesn't matter who created it. The Wadsworth constant is one of those things: well-known and new. That's why it deserves to be on here. - 72.76.254.220 (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except those too have received coverage by the press, academia, etc. →Σ τ c. 02:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Not anything really... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:SNOW and WP:MADEUP. I don't see why this is even being taken seriously enough for an AfD when it should have just gotten a CSD and been done with. Trusilver 02:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to call this a G3 hoax. →Σ τ c. 02:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to endorse that. Trusilver 02:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This deserves its own page on Wikipedia. It is actually accurate, and shouldn't just be deleted because it is from Reddit. Dfabs2 (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I smell sock or meatpuppetry. →Σ τ c. 02:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amine Ayad[edit]

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

As an adjunct professor with a handful of publications, this person appears to not meet either the WP:GNG or the secondary guideline at WP:ACADEMIC. VQuakr (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with only 2 cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 27 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Complete lack of sources establishing notability in accordance with WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC, and a Google search failed to inspire any hope that any such sources exist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to Ruža vjetrova. Selective merging may be performed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Odak[edit]

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

A fictional character from the Croatian soap opera Ruža vjetrova which began airing on RTL Televizija in late August 2011. References all taken from www.sapunice.net, a Croatian website for soap opera devotees. Timbouctou (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages about related characters because of the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Timbouctou (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason

What is the reason you're deleting the articles? There are thousands of articles devoted to characters from American soaps, German soaps, British soaps, Aussie soaps, yet the ones that really bother you are characters from a Croatian soap? Sources are included in articles, what's the deal then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franko1212 (talk • contribs)

There is no apparent explanation why these topics are notable. Their existence is not proof enough, nor is the existence of other articles. AFAICT this could all be speedily merged into Ruža vjetrova. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Franko1212: While WP:FICTION confirms that there are no specific guidelines for fictional elements on Wikipedia, it recommends consulting other relevant guidelines, the most important of which is WP:GNG which outlines several requirements for anything to be presumed notable. All the articles above fail at least two of those requirements - www.sapunice.net is hardly a reliable source because it seems to lack editorial integrity (they publish everything about everything with what seems no selection criteria); and the information supplied to that website comes directly from the series' production company which means it is not entirely independent of the subject.
@Joy: I would agree to alternatively merge all these into Ruža vjetrova to produce something like this. Timbouctou (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all articles into the main soap opera article. All articles nominated blatantly fail General Notability Guidelines. Safiel (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Ruža vjetrova. I can't see these characters being notable just one month into the show's run. GregorB (talk) 11:23, 22 September 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, Rcsprinter (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge all to Ruža vjetrova: None of the subjects of the articles meet the general notability guideline as stand-alone subjects by themselves and all articles are summary-only descriptions of a fictional work. For the sake of consensus, merging all articles to Ruža vjetrova is an acceptable alternative to deletion, although I personally favor deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 23:57, 29 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all for the sake of producing a consensus. Reasons for AFD nomination are sound. But merging into a single article seems like a suitable compromise until more time has been given to see how the show is received. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is difficult to believe that the character has achieved sufficient notability for inclusion in WP in the month since the soap opera started. As I doubt that the series has, either, I see no point in a merge. That article should be deleted as well until it has demonstrated its staying power and notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dabur. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Development Society[edit]

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

The corporate social responsibility arm of a large Indian company. No independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 25 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. gnews shows only 1 relevant hit for this organisation [23]. the alternate name sundesh doesn't reveal anything. [24]. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some found sources, perhaps more are available:

(June 14, 2011.) "Snapdeal adopts village in Uttar Pradesh and residents renames village to Snapdeal.com." The Economic Times (The Times of India).
Vats, Rachit (August 28, 2011.) "Social branding." Hindustantimes.com.

Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to parent organisation. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BrightMichaelJackson's (IMVU) HIStory Tour[edit]

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

No notability established. May be a hoax. Article is unreferenced and provides self-contradictory data. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probable hoax, at best non-notable and mostly crystal ballery anyway. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:10, 27 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable. Apparently the tour, if it ever existed, ended seven months before it began.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Kulkarni[edit]

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

I suspect this fails WP:GNG. The article fails WP:CRIN as he hasn't played first-class/List A/Twenty20, or appeared in the World Cricket League to Division 5 or above. He is noted as being the first player to hit a double century in Twenty20 club cricket, although this was made in a club game in Singapore, which WP:CRIN deems non-notable. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for me, a definite delete: a Google search brings up very little, and simply being the first player to score a double century in twenty over cricket doesn't make him notable in my opinion. We know nothing about the opposing batting attack, and it wouldn't surprise me if someone else has managed it at some point without any notable coverage. Harrias ^talk 19:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 27 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CRIN and only significant coverage is a result of the one innings – feels like a WP:BLP1E issue to me. Jenks24 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. EJBH (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Kirkpatrick (golfer)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability as per WP:Notability (sports)#golf

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator.- William 02:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 27 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail all the criteria listed at WP:Notability (sports)#Golf. He did play in the 1998 U.S. Open, but missed the cut, thus failing to satisfy criterion 5. Deor (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two references. One is broken, the other contains no information. I don't think the Palmer Cup counts as being "similar to" the competitions mentioned in point 1 of the Golf Notability list.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me & My Uke[edit]

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

Article was deproded without addressing the concern, "Appears to fail WP:NALBUMS due to lack of WP:GNG. My search only turned up press release type coverage and social media postings." ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks reliable third party sources and fails to meet the general notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:37, 1 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion show[edit]

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

Orphan, not encyclopedic, purely written, out of date list of (apparently) projected reunion shows. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lack reliable third party sources and fails to meet the general notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:33, 1 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of power outages. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Portugal Blackout of 2000[edit]

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

Minor events about which little is or can be written. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Suggest merging into either Energias de Portugal or Energy in Portugal and deleting the pages. It might even suffice to merge a small summary onto List of power outages. Nightw 17:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Nightw 17:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per nom. Article fails the notability guidelines for events, and doesn't warrant a separate article. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:58, 1 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to List of power outages in Malaysia. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Malaysia blackout[edit]

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

Events about which little is or can be written. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Suggest merging into either National Grid (Malaysia) or Energy in Malaysia and deleting the pages. It might even suffice to merge a small summary onto List of power outages. Nightw 17:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think these article should merge to List of power outages in Malaysia rather than merge to National Grid (Malaysia) or Energy in Malaysia. - WPSamson (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge to List of power outages in Malaysia, with a summary in Energy in Malaysia that accurately reflects the stability of the power grid on both an exceptional basis (these big outages) and a routine basis. Summarize for List of power outages each incident in that article's style of 35-100 word precise descriptions, with a link to a news story. I can't tell from these fragments whether these were isolated events or part of a bigger narrative. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 27 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Escalera al Cielo[edit]

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

Did this program actually air? The fact that the article is two years out of date, possibly more, doesn't help. If it didn't air, I don't know if it is notable... Raymie (t • c) 17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:11, 25 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As near as I can tell from sources like this press release and this telenovela site, this series is just a Spanish dub of the Korean Stairway to Heaven, the article on which already mentions that the series has enjoyed some success in Latin America. Since it's not really a work distinct from the Korean series (as a remake with different actors would be, for instance), it doesn't appear to require a separate article. Deor (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tannhäuser (board game)#Expansions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: Novgorod[edit]

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

Article is only a mere sentence based on a product that is discussed in greater detail on the page it is directed from: Tannhäuser (board game), which itself is a topic that doesn't require extensive detail to warrant a separate article being insufficient notability. The original is currently undergoing an expansion that includes it. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination fixed for above user and listed on the log for the 25th. lifebaka++ 16:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:25, 25 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Non-notable "expansion" of a board game. Very little content (none of encyclopedic value) and zero sources. Very little hope that sources will be found to establish notability, or that the article content can be augmented to the point where it has sufficient encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to expansions section in Tannhäuser (board_game). Redirects are cheap, reasonable search term. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MC Lars#Horris Records. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horris Records[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 15:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MC Lars#Horris Records (where the article was copied from). RS coverage for Horris is primarily about MC Lars. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, feel that this is not primarily about MC Lars, but that it merely mentions him twice in the article. The first mention of him was stating that he founded the record label, and in my opinion, that is very much about Horris Records, and not just about Lars. And the second mention of him, stating that the name "Horris Records" was inspired by MC Lars's cartoon character he created in school named Lars Horris. That too, explains big part of the origin of Horris Records. I personally think this article is primarily about Horris Records, concidering the information on Bowling for Soup, Crappy Records (I think that's what it was, I apologize if I'm wrong), etc. But it could use some more reliable sources, and some more information if I can, so I will get on that tomorrow. Please take all this into consideration. MetaCow (talk) 04:37, 26 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Gene93k. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tek9[edit]

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

Gaming website of questionable notability. Almost all claims are sourced to the website itself - little referencing from independent reliable sources. Google search on Tek9 "call of duty" shows mainly blog mentions, primary sources, and social media - no significant coverage from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:WEB#Criteria. The citations are almost entirely self-referential and I fail to see that a Facebook page, YouTube video and a couple of fansites equate to WP:RS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Firstly, I have just added a third party reliable reference publication, an article on Tek9 (in dutch) printed in De Standaard - a massive recognised Flemish newspaper. Secondly, Nieuwsbank (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nieuwsbank) released a press release on tek9 (a reliable press release company with free lance journalists, all of which are third party, the website is not affiliated to gaming) - I have added this reference as well. Thirdly, one of these 'fan' sites you label as an unreliable source actually has a Wikipedia page of its own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotfrag , from that Wikipedia page I can directly quote (originally taken from the New York Post) ' New York Post writer Michael Kane called GotFrag "the best source of gaming [information] for the hard-core community'.Fourthly, the youtube page is a video displaying footage from a TV documentary show - Kloppen, broadcast to over 1million Belgian viewers. This documentary is well known on Belgian TV channel Een - the publisher should be considered reliable.Additionally, Cadred's only affiliation with Tek9 is that it is owned by the same company. Also having a wikipedia page on its own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadred, Cadred pays its journalists (one of which is essentially full time) to write articles on its website - a further indication of journalistic objectivity is therefore proven due to its professionalism.Innocuousm (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)— Innocuousm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please check out the popularity of the references before establishing that it is of questionable notability. Alexa.org ranks it higher than other websites who already have pages on the wikipedia, such as cadred, with the latter being ranked at 139,237, and the former at 79,059. References from mainstream media have been inserted, as well as from other websites which target the same subjects. If that does not suffice, looking at numbers will be enough. TEK9 Cinema productions have been viewed by hundreds of thousands, such as this, which currently clocks at 634,076 viewers, and a simple audio interview has 65,377. Monthly contests^[2] for best in-game kills all get more than 20,000 viewers each. Mikk90 (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)— Mikk90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 27 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fansites should only be listed on wiki if they have an impact on the outside world. Not notable enough. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Harizonotoh9. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources, as described by Innocuousm, are reliable. Arguments to delete are WP:JNN. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Selby[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP fails WP:NACTOR. IMDB shows only minor roles, many of them uncredited. I can't find any coverage of him or his book in reliable sources except for a reference in this book. Google doesn't have a preview of it, but it appears to be discussing the subject's anorexia from a clinical perspective. Pburka (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything beyond what the nominator did, and I'm not seeing enough notability from that to justify an article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrations BIT Jaipur[edit]

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

Article about a campus festival. There are multiple problems. The first is that it's probably a copyright violation. I haven't been able to find the original text online but a long unwikified piece using phrases such as "we finally managed to" and "our present director" strongly suggests that this was lifted from some sort of campus publication. Even supposing that this is not a copyright violation, the tone is unacceptably promotional and self-serving. I also question the notability of the event. Pichpich (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

another admin chose to speedy delete this as "essay, OR, no sources, pov". That;'s not a speedy delete reason, so I have restored the article for a proper discussion. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete pure spam from beginning to end, I speedied it, but apparently it needs debating Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:23, 28 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - WP:ESSAY, WP:MADEUP, very probable copyvio. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just blocks of text pasted up on WP with no sense of what an article is supposed to be. Not Notable. No refs. Possibly WP:MADEUP. It's horrid, take it away.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lecs Luther[edit]

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

No indication of meeting notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Claims to be in NMEs 25 bands you have to hear are not backed up by ref. Dayandnight reference mentions NME but not in relation to Luther and link to NME article does not list him. noq (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Claim of notability relates to a "misreading" of the DayAndNight blog post. (The cited blog post mentions the top NME 25 and the article subject. But it does'nt state that the subject is in the top 25. And nor is the subject listed at NME.) Given that this seems to be the only coverage (and that coverage state doesn't what is claimed), and as "debut" only released a few weeks ago (and even then just on YouTube), would seem to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Guliolopez (talk) 17:23, 25 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SalvageSale[edit]

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

I found zero significant coverage for this website. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Unreferenced article about an online scrap auction website. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 23 September 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) 10:48, 25 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Carr Anderson[edit]

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

Not notable person per WP:Academic William 00:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — William 00:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few sources, possible hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
delete—not a hoax, i think, as the book mentioned appears in worldcat, although not widely held. also, this seems to be a paywalled jama obit, per this. more likely memorial page. in either case, not notable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm seeing Google scholar citation counts of 92 ("Loxoscelism and necrotic arachnidism"), 48 ("Utilization of physician services for dermatologic complaints"), etc. It's respectable, but not enough to really convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and neither is being a department chair enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I find the same cites as David Eppstein and I agree that his Google Scholar record is marginal. However, being a department head at a major university for 25 years is impressive. So is having the university name an endowed professorship after him. The article needs major work to make it encyclopedic but I believe it could be salvaged, and I will undertake it if the consensus is keep.--MelanieN (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—MelanieN, i don't want to be argumentative, but getting an endowed chair named after oneself is purely a matter of having the money. the more famous the school, the more it costs, but anyone who can pay can have one unless they're so notorious that the school won't take their money (oh my, a case could be made that *not* having an endowed chair named after one is more likely to indicate notability than having one!). anyway, that's why it's actually being in the endowed chair that meets wp:prof. you and David Eppstein have made me feel a little more wavery on my delete, but am not quite ready to switch it up yet.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOST endowed chairs are "purchased" by a major donor and named for that donor, yes - but not all. Occasionally they are named in someone's honor. I suspect in this case the position of department chair was upgraded to an endowed chair and named in his honor, without him actually bankrolling it. Lifelong academics usually don't have that kind of money. Such a tribute could have been created when he retired, or when he died. The fact that his obituary suggests memorial donations to the "Philip C. Anderson Endowed Professorship" [25] also supports the notion that it was created ABOUT him, by admirers and former students, rather than BY him. BTW he or his work do seem to have gotten some coverage in the lay press.[26] --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you make a good point, and i'd believe it prima facie about anyone except a professor of medicine, as there are quite a few of those who do have quite a bit of money. however, like i said, i'm feeling wavery, and getting waverier. you're finding good sources.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW here is additional evidence that the chair is being funded by gifts given by the public in his name, rather than funded by him. --MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's a good one there. call me cynical, but i'm sure that even for fully endowed chairs, universities will solicit gifts. nevertheless, i don't believe that they'd say that the endowment wasn't funded to do so.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than a tribute page. "Dr. Anderson was somewhat of a renaissance man." Please.--Seduisant (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said I will clean it up if it is kept. Let's discuss whether he deserves an article, not the current state of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. i wish that participants in these discussions might remember that the afd policy states clearly that In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. and a fortiori, not a reason for saying that an article should be deleted.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Would you care to give us a link to that statement as it is one that needs to be quoted to many AfD nominators. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

it's WP:BEFORE D3.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Boys (Rachel Stevens song) [edit]

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

Unnotable album track. Not a single in the UK (perhaps in Slovakia - although the ref is of little use). The text for the "reception" section is taken straight from the parent album's article. Seems to be of little use as an article and can't see how it could be redeemed.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google news archive search finds a handful of hits only, and only within the context of a larger album review. This song doesn't even seem notable within the context of the album--e.g., it was not one of the four singles off the album, and if you look at the quite-lengthy allmusic review that is referenced, it doesn't get a mention and is not one of the five songs flagged as key tracks. Per WP:NSONGS, "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". Except that this brief article is mostly a steal from the album page anyway, so recommend direct delete. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:41, 26 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "delete" !voters fail to present a valid argument. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bachchan family[edit]

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

there is no need for such small article on the family, each member has his own page-a huge one- this page is not adding anything useful, so everything written in it could easily be added to personal life section of each member, furthermore, it's a family of 4 actors-unlike the Kapoor family, which is huge. Meryam90 (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:13, 25 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a reason given here for deletion? If not, IMO this AfD should have been closed under WP:Speedy keep reason #1, not relisted. Also, I don't agree that the reason given is even a problem, c.f. Warburton family. Unscintillating (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_pointing_at_a_policy_or_guideline states, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why." Unscintillating (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as proposer. aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 18:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 issue of merging or renaming can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Chinese Democracy[edit]

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

Redundant article. Much of it is simply covering various incidents that happened while the band was on tour and the long history of members joining and leaving the band. This is all covered in great detail in the Guns N' Roses article. The rest of it should be pruned and maintained in the main Chinese Democracy article. At this point this is an impossible to maintain mess that is redundantly covered in at least three articles. The solution to this problem is not to sweep things under the rug by splitting articles, it is to maintain the current articles and prevent them from becoming over run with a minutiae of details. Ridernyc (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A number of parts of the article I found confusing as to how they related to Chinese Democracy. The subject is notable and the article sourced but, as the nominator states, the Chinese Democracy article probably the best place for any info not covered in that or in Guns N' Roses. But is there really need for an extensive analysis of leaks during the album's development? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge; in other words, close this AFD and address the articles and subject through normal editing and discussion. This album had a ridiculously long history and its development was covered by the press and music industry publications in detail for nearly twenty years. So there's at least a reasonable basis for its history having a standalone article. Even if there are unnecessary details that could be pruned such that the subject could be covered sufficiently within the album and band articles, that's a task for a careful editing scalpel, not an AFD chainsaw. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 25 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept, perhaps this (and the main album page) should be renamed. "History of Chinese Democracy" makes me think of democracy in China, not a rock band's album. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disambiguation tag at the top of the article which I've reworded and relinked to the actual history of democracy within China. That should be sufficient. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Howling (film). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Quist[edit]

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

No significant coverage in third-party sources to WP:verify notability. The sources barely link the character to the actor and describe a few plot details. According to the general notability guideline, sources need to provide significant coverage, "address the subject directly in detail" and provide "more than a trivial mention". The coverage falls drastically short of that standard. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books shows plenty of non-trivial mentions. Per WP:BEFORE, I'd like the nom to explain how none of those books amount to significant coverage of the character. I note that there seems to be a very low false positive rate for that name, so searching shouldn't be hard. Bottom line: Meets N, meets V, article could clearly be improved rather than deleted. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (I ask the follwing while having not seen the movie myself) Why does Eddie get his own article? Is it because he was the main antagonist? A quick glace over the cast list showed that no one else in the movie seems to have their own article, yet he deserves one? Just curious how that worked out. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 08:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional character by himself does not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone topic since most mentions in books or publications come from tertiary sources that mentions him mainly from a plot-only perspective without reception or significance in the real world. The article itself uses references about the film or tertiary sources, but no secondary sources making analytic or evaluative claims about him are provided, at best only a tertiary source of archetypes in horror films. Even with a quick search engine test, I do not see convincing evidence that the individual fictional character has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to justify a stand-alone article about him. Jfgslo (talk) 00:23, 30 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the movie's page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Howling (film). I agree with User:Jfgslo and the nominator the very search results User:Jclemens brings are trivial mentions with not enough "analytic or evaluative claims" to justify inclusion of the character in an encyclopedia. I'd further like to know why a trusted servant of the pedia like Jclemens has decided to use such casual and biting criticism of the nominator's thinking in disagreement in this process (no pun intended). I'll take the liberty of thoroughly addressing that named arbitrators's concerns: a clickthrough of the gbooks search Jclemens includes leads to 23 hits. Of those ghits, fully six are books created directly from Wikipedia content, so those don't count [27][28][29][30][31][32]. We're down to 17. Four of the remaining links predate the release of the film and clearly don't refer to this subject in any way [33][34][35][36]. Now we have 13. Two are unavailable for viewing so we can't use those to determine WP:BEFORE, since hits by themselves don't count [37][38]. Now 11. With few exceptions, the rest are either mentions during plot summaries [39][40][41][42][43][44] or mere listings of the character in a film description [45][46][47]. In a few cases of the previously listed links, both descriptors apply. These two links refer to makeup for the actor to portray the role, not about the character [48] [49]. None of the sources directly address the character, NONE. Now let's do our own reasonable search. gScholar is no help [50], a mere review of the movie. gEverything hits give us a large number of youtube hits, a number of blogs, mostly dealing with prosthetic and masks. Plus we have the normal range of Wikipedia imitators and mirrors. Yahoo doesn't find us anything Google didn't find, neither does Bing. In my opinion, a reasonable search for sources as suggested by WP:BEFORE gives us EVERY reason to nominate this page for deletion. If User:Jclemens really feels strongly, he might try applying Rescue tag so that others can conduct a search, possibly of offline sources (which may indeed exist). Without those sources, clear case for deletion, and a pretty good case the light Jclemens tried to bring to bear didn't shine too brightly. The nominator certainly didn't deserve a mild dressing-down by an arbitrator simply because he disagreed with a reasonable case for deletion. BusterD (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator I would support a merge if it will produce a consensus. Policy still warrants deletion considering the lack of sources. But some sort of re-organization would be the next best thing. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ [51]
^ Example of a monthly TEK9 Contest on Youtube

[1] [51]

[2] Example of a monthly TEK9 Contest on Youtube

[1]

[2]