Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 27

< 26 October	28 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 keep. v/r - T P 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selby Whittingham[edit]

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

Unsourced biography (possibly autobiography) of a non-notable living person. Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Plenty of sources seem to be available. What's your reasoning for non-notability? Pburka (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- response all his publications but one seem to be published by the same obscure society, possibly Whittingham himself wearing a different hat. There is no assertion (far less evidence) that I can see that Whittingham himself, rather than Turner, is notable: no articles about him, etc. There are no footnotes at all, unless you count LinkedIn (not a reliable source for much of anything). Sole author of this unsourced BLP on an art expert is User:Art Experts, whose arguments for retention have included "Dr Whittingham has the right to have his entry which is not promoting him but promoting an interest in J.W.M. Turner, the 19th C painter!". --Orange Mike | Talk 23:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google News shows that he's quoted periodically by the Telegraph, the Guardian and the New York Times as a Turner expert. I think he's got a reasonable claim to notability, regardless of the quality of the article. BTW, I also suspected that the article was autobiographical, but the primary editor has identified herself at Wikipedia:Help_desk#illicit_amendment_to_an_entry. Assuming this is accurate, she's neither the subject nor an immediate relation. Pburka (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - He is an expert on a notable subject; but that does not make him himself notable. I do acknowledge that the editor in question has outed herself (although the plural username and the use of the royal "we" must be abandoned). She writes only about obscure art experts, and is only marginally notable herself. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Pburka, could you please add some of the reference you have found. If you add some that establish his notability then the problem is solved. Bgwhite (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - He is an expert on a notable subject who has himself received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources over an extended period of time thus satisfying WP:GNG. Note that AfD is not cleanup -- our obligation is to examine the subject, not just the current state of the article. I have now added the references which I identified in my previous comments to the article. Pburka (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contrary to what Pburka says, there are not "Plenty of sources". As far as the references in the article are concerned, if we ignore the one that just says "www.turnermuseum.org" and nothing more, all but one of the references are written by Selby Whittingham, not about him. The other one refers to Whittingham, but is not about him. It is an annual report of an organisation called "The Independent Turner Society" which, according to the Wikipedia article, was founded by Selby Whittington. Thus, among the nine "references" in the article, we have a total of zero independent sources. Also, not one of the (non-independent) sources contains substantial material about him. OK, so much for the cited references, but what about other sources? Checking the first few dozen Google hits, I found Wikipedia, a few pages on the web site of Whittingham's "Independent Turner Society", other pages by Whittingham or containing brief quotes from him, a couple of websites selling one or more books by Whittingham, and so on, but apart from the Wikipedia article not one single source which contained significant content about him, as opposed to by him. If "Plenty of sources seem to be available" then why not tell us what and where those sources are? Simply stating that they exist without giving any information about them is not helpful, and certainly doesn't establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of independent sources. The references section of the article is mostly the bibliography of the author.Farhikht (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The analysis convincing made by JamesBWatson is quite convincing. --Crusio (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and please note there are numerous references. Again, what are the reasons for non-notability? This is a well known scholar. If Who's Who in Art? last year (and the 12 preceding years) is not a "reliable course", I wonder what is? There are now ample references to the entry and no reason to discuss deletion. User talk:kanoe114;45 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any more information about that publication? I've tried searching for it on Google books and Amazon with no luck. For example, who are the authors, editors and publisher? Is it this? Pburka (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Found on google books)Who's who in art, Volume 25 by Bernard Dolman. The Art Trade Press, Ltd., 1992 - Biography & Autobiography - 598 pages. Selby Whittingham entry Page 508. "WHITTINGHAM Dr Selby, BA (1964), M.A. Ph.D(1975);art historian;founder of Turner Soc. 1975;" etc. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. I've updated the citation in the article based on that. Pburka (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Noted Turner scholar and expert - Guardian: Selby Whittingham, an expert on Turner Evening Standard: Turner expert Dr Selby Whittingham. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- comment - noted as a Turner scholar, indeed arguably a fanatic (not that there's anything wrong with that). The question is whether he is notable in his own right; and I feel the answer is "no". --Orange Mike | Talk 22:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, doesn't "noted as a Turner scholar" meet the criterion at WP:PROF? DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heavily citated, descriptive, and long enough, I am "pretty sure" WP:GNG is met. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment "heavily citated"? Note that almost all the citations are to works published by his little breakaway society; and the remaining citations are feeble in the extreme. Most of the biographical material is totally unsourced, including all the colorful tidbits about his mom, his ancestor, etc. WP:GNG is in my opinion nowhere near met. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A possibly useful reference: Is his winning this Frank Mason Prize useful (http://artwatchuk.wordpress.com/tag/the-watteau-society/) to try and save the article? (Msrasnw (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Clarrification and a worry about the tone of some of the comments here : I think Dr Whittingham seems not only to have been the founder of the little breakaway society The Independent Turner Society but also a founder of the original Turner Society in 1975 - from which the latter broke away. I am also worried about the tone of some of the comments here - accusing Dr Whittingham of writing this article - accusing him of being a fanatic and calling the Independent Turner Society a little break away society is not, in my view, what we should be doing in Afds. I think this is the sort of thing that gives wikipedia a bad name. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I consider the publication record sufficient to show as meeting WP:PROF, as an expert on the subject of Turner. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources (particularly press sources) added by Pburka. PWilkinson (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and meets the criteria...Modernist (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources to pass WP:General notability guideline. Nitalake (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Sundai[edit]

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

Seems not satisfy WP:MUSIC. Though sources are present many of them seem trivial and fail to establish why this musician is truly notable. As far as I could tell, none of the suggestions in WP:MUSIC were met. ERK^talk 23:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. sources provided are not reliable. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this musician in reliable sources; doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 03:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:MUSICBIO fully. Ray-Rays 07:10, 29 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 delete. v/r - T P 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Onthanusi Sultanate[edit]

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

There do not seem to be any reliable sources for this in English on google. It seems like a hoax. Pass a Method talk 22:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google hits are all Wikip copies or search traps or both; books finds nothing at all. It's possible that the transliteration is wrong but in that case there's so little substance here that starting over with a different source is no great loss. Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible hoax, and no big deal to recreate if a source is found. --Banana (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find anything that's not a mirror of this. Can't find anything useful on alleged source. Happy to look again if new sources can be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly O'Mara[edit]

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

A TV news reporter. Has been working for three years in a small market. No independent, reliable sources about her that can be found. Fails nobility requirements for a journalist (WP:CREATIVE) and WP:GNG. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Interestingly, apparently her TV station is one of the smallest markets in the United States, in remote northern Maine. As much as I am fascinated to know that she was "raised in the Christian faith" (in America no less!) and "first worked as a kindergarten through 5th grade teacher at a small school in Wytopitlock, teaching a total of eight students and where O'Mara's golden retriever, Harvey, was a class pet," (no Harvey pic??!?!) this is an impossible case for notability. Also, target should be redirected to the station.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:48, 29 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. Black Kite (t) 01:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Ho[edit]

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

Ok, it is a hymn, but that alone doesn't establish notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There have been thousands upon thousands of hymns written. What makes this one special? St Anselm (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC) In light of the work that has been done to establish notability, I am changing my vote to keep. St Anselm (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page (first preference) or keep (second preference). StAnselm — When I saw Slumdog Millionare, I got confused as to whether "Jai Ho" was some pop/techno adaptation of "Jaya Ho" (I don't speak Hindi). I looked up "Jaya Ho" on Wikipedia and found no article and no dablink. I got confused and had to do quite a bit of digging on various websites to find that the song and the hymn are unrelated; because I didn't know about the "Jai Ho" transliteration/spelling, it was only by chance that I found that the two are unrelated: Someone else on a different website had happened to transliterate the Slumdog Millionaire song title "Jai Ho" as "Jaya Ho." I've set "Jaya Ho" to redirect to "Jai ho" and made "Jai ho" a disambiguation page distinguishing between multiple uses of the corresponding phrase: It links to the Slumdog Millionare article using the article's capitalization "Jai Ho", and it lists the hymn as "Jaya Ho". BTW, for the validity of "Jaya ho" as a transliteration, see the history of Jaya ho, which now-blocked/deleted user WillyGA created in an act of vandalism by posting what amounts to a victory cheer. (Jaya ho now also redirects to Jai ho.) — Antediluvian67 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nom - I have no problem with the article becoming a disambig, which it now is. A closing admin can feel free to close this AFD if they choose as resolved to be a disambig. It still isn't "notable" per se, but in the interest of completeness, it would make sense as a single line and external link, and is for all intent, relatively deleted now. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is some Google Books coverage, but not very much. -- 202.124.73.183 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep. Sources added to the article by Cunard (see below) seem to take this article across the line. -- 202.124.73.83 (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have undone the redirect by Antediluvian67 to allow the AfD to run its course, ~~although a redirect may be a good final outcome~~. -- 202.124.73.183 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Jai ho Jai ho, it's off to work we go. Non-notable hymn, and there's not even a single item to disambiguate, let alone two. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found this article from C. Michael Hawn, a professor of sacred music at Perkins School of Theology. I also found discussion about the hymn in a book by Carlton R. Young.
For Young's source, I have been able to obtain part of the source through Google Books snippets view:
Hindi; trans, by Katherine R. Rohrbough, 1958 phonetic transcription from the Hindi by I-to Loh, 1988 This traditional Hindi hymn was brought to the USA by the Centennial Choir of India, Victor C. Sherring, director, and in 1955-56 was performed by them in concerts and worship services in seventy cities that celebrated the centenary of Methodist missions in that country. Victor C. Sherring has written: "The hymn was first included in Jaya Ho, Songs of Joy from India, 1955-1956, a collection of songs in Indian and Western musical notation published in Lucknow by the Centenary Music Committee; and in Joyful Songs of India, 1955-56, a collection of songs in translation from Southeast Asia.
Cunard (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, StAnselm and 202.124.73.183, for reviewing the article after my rewrite. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here whether the articles meets the notability guidelines or not. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Wean[edit]

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

Wean does not pass WP:CRIME Vic49 (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for WP:CRIME. --Cox wasan (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor criminal, fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—seems to meet gng, although the article is in quite bad shape. i fixed it a little, added one nyt source, one wash post source. the dude is discussed in all those books in the refs section that aren't cited inline, but that's a matter for editing, some of which i will try to do soon. however, the fact that he's discussed in them is enough to meet the gng.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In both newspaper articles he is only mentioned once as a witness and not as mayor criminal. Notability is not about being mentioned in a newspaper article. - DonCalo (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are absolutely correct that his notability is not established by the newspaper articles. that is why i noted above that he was discussed in the books and stated explicitly that it was the books that i was basing my argument that he meets the gng. did you look at them? here's one:

Anthony M. DeStefano (27 May 2008). King of the Godfathers: Big Joey Massino and the Fall of the Bonanno Crime Family. Citadel Press. pp. 130–. ISBN 978-0-8065-2874-8. Retrieved 29 October 2011.

this is the only one with an actual preview in gbooks, but it's got pages on the guy.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in 4 mafia books. Portillo (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs some attention but there is in my opinion no question about this one passing WP:CRIME. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how does it meet WP:CRIME? LibStar (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:CRIME. Article actually is more a case for Joe Massino being notable. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'm glad you called out BabbaQ on his WP:JUSTAPOLICY, because i think that the level of discussion at afds in general could stand to be a great deal higher, but i don't see how you're not doing roughly the same thing. here's the relevant sentence from WP:CRIME: Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. now, it's clear to me that this guy meets it, but i can see that this is a borderline case and that reasonable editors can disagree on whether or not he meets it. how does he not, in your opinion?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough references and material to meet GNG. There is a full page on him in the mafia book already used as a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly, there are some sources available. The trick now is to use them to fix the article, but cleanup is not a deletion issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who first brought this article up for attention, as I saw no evidence of this guy having any major impact on his crime family or the world at large. I wasn't entirely sure if I could still vote, but if I can I consequently recommend deletion. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have been editing these LCN articles since 2007 and have never seen this guy mentioned anywhere else. Having good references does not make someone notable.Rogermx (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant involvement in major criminal activities over a period of time; adequately sourced. According to some views expressed here (and at other similar article AfDs), the criteria for career criminals would be "famous" , but, like for everything else here, it's merely "notable". DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better Dayz (Online Web series)[edit]

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

Unremarkable unreleased webseries. Google news search on "Better Dayz" webseries shows no results. Standard search on the same terms show a lot of social media and primary sources, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources MikeWazowski (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Sparthorse (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 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. v/r - T P 01:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryann Aoukar[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that we are dealing with a notable and well-awarded designer. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't either. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Nor can I... --Crusio (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, as it turns out the contributor probably has a serious COI; moreover, the subject is a former colleague of mine (in the broad sense of the word--worked for the same university). So I have a COI as well! Oh, what to do... Drmies (talk) 18:15, 28 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. v/r - T P 01:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andri Rafn Yeoman[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that Mr. Yeoman has played in the Icelandic league. As this league is not fully pro, playing in it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom, non-notable players. Giant Snowman 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:40, 31 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, really unavoidable with the deletion of the parent series article. postdlf (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Au~eiku episodes[edit]

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

Along with Au~eiku, article is regarding a show that has no notability. No sources, also WP:CRYSTAL would apply. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources, blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Articles created by a SPA with a clear COI. Should have been Speedied. Edward321 (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (yak) 19:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NoteAu~eiku was deleted earlier today per AfD. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:43, 27 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. v/r - T P 01:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Breedlove[edit]

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

Subject fails the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Alaska's first internet cafe, which he founded, has received some media attention and may itself be notable but none of the sources discuss the founder, if they even mention his name. JohnInDC (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. None of the referenced sources even mentions Breedlove, except one, which is written by Breedlove. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Anchorage Daily News article which is pictured states that Mr Breedlove was founder of Alaska's first cyber cafe. This was an great achievement for Alaska & Anchorage tourism. Will be posting local Anchorage channel 2 news coverage from 11 Sep 1996 as soon as it arrives from archive which also states founder and how it has help put Alaska on the map.
-- Amienutter (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minimal if any notability. Does not pass WP:GNG as it is. Even with the presumed 15 minutes of fame on TV once, does not pass WP:BIO1E. Uʔ (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A brief bio of the founder may be included in Surf City, An Internet Cafe, assuming someone writes that first. Uʔ (talk) 15:57, 27 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, Rcsprinter (state) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search shows multiple hits to Surf City & Robert A Breedlove as founder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.115.94 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - NB, the foregoing IP appears to be the same individual as the article's author, Amienutter, who has already commented here. JohnInDC (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The IP was blocked as sock-puppet for one week; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amienutter. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Speaking not only as a once-upon-a-time patron of Surf City, but someone who has been using the Internet since 1989, I could perhaps offer a different perspective. To me, this smacks of historical revisionism. So Surf City was founded in 1996. A whole lot of people in Alaska, and everywhere else for that matter, had jumped on the Internet bandwagon by 1996. There were a number of Internet evangelists in Alaska for years by that point, most notably H. A. Boucher. Boucher's activism can be amply verified by reliable sources, though what coverage was given to him was mostly on account of his stature in business and politics rather than his computer wizardry. In comparison, the other late 1980s/early 1990s Internet evangelists in Alaska, myself included, were mostly a ragtag bunch of high school and college kids. Lance Ahern, who founded the ISP Internet Alaska roughly four years before Surf City started, was far more of an Internet pioneer in Alaska than Breedlove.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:42, 31 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. v/r - T P 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Robinson[edit]

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

Another Alex de-PROD without a giving any reason. Individual is not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Appears to be this entry at findagrave; military service does not meet WP:Soldier; no helpful criteria covered, but may assist further searches. Dru of Id (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - championship-winning manager. However, it's only one championship, and for that I have to ask: what level of baseball were the Madisonville Miners at? If they were AAA, AA or even A, I'd argue winning the championship with them establishes notability; if not an A-level team, though, it probably doesn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madisonville Miners were a Class-D league.. similar to todays rookie leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... this guy doesnt quite do it for me. Spanneraol (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep person has achived multiple titles, I feel meets the requirements for both WP:GNG and WP:STUB. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nowhere in GNG or STUB does it say that "achieving multiple titles" passes those thresholds. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 24 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, Rcsprinter (whisper) 19:33, 27 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. With no prejudice toward recreation. The topic is notable, but the article does not have any salvagable parts. v/r - T P 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travel policy[edit]

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

A personal essay with no reliable sources so unverifiable. Sparthorse (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced personal essay or notes. AllyD (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - a very new article with considerable scope for development, but it might take a lot of work searching through planning applications, regional "green" policies etc. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is obviously notable as entire books have been written about it such as Travel and Entertainment Best Practices. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy which makes it fairly clear that we don't go deleteing new work just because it's not a GA yet. Warden (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above statment by Warden, and the fact that more sources can be found, this is fully salvageble. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With no prejudice yet towards recreation. Maybe a topic can be created on this, but this article is currently all unsourced mush.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:10, 29 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 Speedied by User:Acroterion

I'm closing for cleanup purposes only and don't necessarily either support or oppose the decision to speedy delete the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HUMANIST LIFE GOALS AND VALUES[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: User essay, fails WP:OR and WP:IINFO. Eeekster (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete. Possible copyright violation. Non-encyclopedic personal essay. --Joefridayquaker (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay. I tried searching for the text elsewhere so as to speedy this as a copyvio but came up empty. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ~~copyvio~~ unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 27 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. Davewild (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoudreza Hejazi[edit]

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

No reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject and in particular the subject appears to fail the notability guidelines for academics. The included references are either not reliable or do not provide substantive coverage. A contested Prod, so taken to AfD. Sparthorse (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As written, the article doesn't include anything that would lead me to believe that the subject is notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost no GS cites in highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No evidence that this meets WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a recent Ph.D. he is unlikely to pass WP:PROF and the citation record confirms this assessment. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein and others. That said, though, I think the usual caveats apply here - he is a new PhD, as noted, so it's possible that future research or publications may indicate notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new reference (Mahmoud's biography in Marquis Who's Who) has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.57.70 (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis Who's Who uses information supplied by the subjects themselves and is not independent. In addition, Marquis is more or less a vanity press outfit. --Crusio (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lamborghini Jarama. Of course anything worth merging can be done so from the history, as long as it's attributed properly. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lamborghini 400GT Jamara[edit]

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

There is already an article about Lamborghini Jarama, to which any additional information about the 400GT should fit quite well. Tupsumato (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Seems like a reasonable search term; no need to delete. Pburka (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - fair enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 27 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. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Romeo 14c[edit]

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

No sources provided and Google search did not bring up anything related to "Alfa Romeo 14c", meaning that it's highly likely that such car does not exist, even on paper. Tupsumato (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Perpetrator has been making trouble elsewhere. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. You are the weakest article, good bye. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article as it is smells (the "up coming McLaren F1" was "up coming" in 1993...), but the car DOES appear to exist...as something WP:MADEUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 27 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. v/r - T P 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harshnath[edit]

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

Notability not established. Creator keeps removing tags, won't add citations, wider view is needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge/Redirect with Sikar Found 2 references. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:32, 29 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 01:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music to Raise the Dead[edit]

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

Restarting debate. Last debate was open 4 weeks with nothing resembling a consensus. Argument is that the album was "hard to find" and "considered" influential, both of which are subjective and weaselly. I can't find a concrete establishment of notability — it's entirely possible for a band to release a non-notable album that just didn't get any attention. I am completely unconvinced by the keep arguments in the last AFD, which were mostly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:LOSE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Only have the subjective, weaselly argument. I will try to find a concrete establishment of notability. I am completely unconvinced of neutrality by the nominator. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Against my better political judgment I'm going to wade into this tarpit. For what it's worth I was previously unfamiliar with the band and the cassette, and wasn't involved in the prior debates. There are a number of separate reasons why I think this should be kept:

The pop culture notability guidelines are written with the recent past in mind. Due to the evolution of recording technology, it has been possible to release album-length studio cassettes cheaply since about 1980 or so (by and large because of the introduction of the Portastudio and similar products). In 1974, to release an album length studio cassette required a substantial investment of time and money, making such releases inherently more notable than they are today. The production of the cover artwork alone would have cost more than the total production costs most young bands now incur for a CD. As such, I believe that a degree of forbearance is called for.
To the extent that WP:MUSIC applies, the standards for released material should govern, not those for demos or unreleased material. By the standards of the era (1974), a full-length studio recording with album art would be considered a release, even if distribution had been relatively limited. A demo (something put together as a promotional tool to book live gigs, in the early 1970s, would typically have no artwork, and would either be a live recording or one or two studio tracks.
The fact that the album and the band are still of popular interest after 35 years creates a presumption in favor of notability.
While I acknowledge that notability is not inherited, I believe that a certain amount of weight should be given to the problems in article structure posed for Resurrection Band should a decision be made to delete one or two articles on early albums while keeping articles covering the later albums where notability is not in doubt. Doing so would mean that the early albums would have full coverage in the Resurrection Band article itself while the more notable, later albums would have only a summary and a link, hardly an outcome we would want.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely none of your filibustering is based in policy. You're saying we should consider it notable because it's not "new". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you believe I'm engaging in debate merely to waste time as I wrote the words above in a sincere attempt to help the project. I don't believe that my reasoning can be accurately condensed to "notable because it's not new."

I believe that WP:MUSIC has many shortcomings and don't see it as the last word. WP:MUSIC was created to address the very real problem of proliferation of articles on ephemeral bands for which there are no useful sources. Such articles are usually promotional in nature and are conflict magnets, and something had to be done. But the criteria don't always make sense for bands from another era -- would we delete articles on Tiny Hill's recordings just because we can't find online sources confirming their individual notability? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're bringing WP:WAX. Screw Tiny Hill, we're not talking about him now. We're talking about these two albums. Tell me what makes them notable besides "well, they MIGHT be, let's give them the benefit of the doubt". The source is most certainly vague as it says that the album "may be" two different things. Do you really think that's enough to base an article on?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Music to Raise the Dead to Resurrection Band. Starting with the Music to Raise the Dead cassette and looking at the article's current pair of references: (1) I'm not familiar with Firestream; what makes it a reliable source, and where is the review? I'm getting a 404 page. (2) I'm not finding any mention for this recording in the Powell book, at least not using Google Books. As for other sources, the best I could find are passing mentions here and here. All Your Life has similar issues with the current references in its article. It appears that these recordings, while performed by an indisputably significant band, were promotional limited-edition releases and are not really part of the band's discography (meaning that sources identify Awaiting Your Reply as the band's debut album). If my understanding of these earlier recordings is correct, then I would sort of liken them to, as an example, Manic Hedgehog, a pre-Radiohead demo recording. Demos and promotional/limited-edition releases are not the same thing, but both of these cases involve recordings done prior to the bands' proper debuts, and neither looks to have significant coverage in reliable sources, thus not meeting WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. I prefer to redirect (rather than delete) Music to Raise the Dead for two reasons: (1) multiple sources mention it as the band's slogan, and (2) it's a reasonable search term. Regarding All Your Life, I would delete it and move All Your Life (song) in its place, perhaps with a hatnote directing readers to the Resurrection Band article. Of course, if it can be demonstrated that significant coverage exists in reliable sources for these albums, I'll happily change my !vote to keep. Gongshow ^Talk 02:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and speedy close - immediately re-opening the AfD after the last one closed smells of WP:POINTyness. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Above Argument by The Uninvited Co. Inc., and I personally beleive this can be salvaged as enough accurate information is given. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:52, 28 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 delete arguments point out that the article does not meet the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, with a consensus of established editors pointing this out. The keep arguments are largely very weak, do not base their arguments on wikipedia's policies and guidelines, with the only main argument being that the article passes WP:ENTERTAINER. However this is refuted by several of those supporting deletion, and those arguing for keeping have failed to produce reliable secondary sources. As such the consensus based on wikipedia's policies and guidelines is clear for deletion. Davewild (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Plott[edit]

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

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

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

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

Sources are weak. The article subject is allegedly notable for playing Starcraft and hosting coverage of Starcraft tournaments on GomTV, which is internet-only and not a television station in any of the traditionally understood meanings of the term. Note that this waas previously deleted when it was under the subject's nickname, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasteless. This version uses some different sources, so is probably not eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also, imo, a speedy, though as long as we're here, and given the history, we might as well seek a more final determination. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG as he has not been the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There's a good handful, but most of them are quite old or from relatively niche sites. Some exceptions; "Sons of Starcraft" kickstarter.com project, Up Close Gamers, Gosu Gamers. --BlueNovember ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per before. The sources have only gotten better since the last nomination, and WP:USEBYOTHERS and countering systemic bias (pro starcraft is a serious affair in Korea, Plott is the most prominent figure in the west associated with that aspect of Korean culture). de Bivort 21:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be more specific about how USEBYOTHERS improves the claim that the article subject is notable? It's not clear what you mean by mentioning it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, in the last AfD, people said that the various databases at teamliquid are not reliable sources. But they are widely used in gaming articles, besides being a private wiki (some people had claimed that it was a wiki and therefore unreliable). de Bivort 03:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I would argue that reliability is not relevant in that case. The site is a wiki that apparently seeks to cover all possible aspects of Starcraft. Therefore inclusion there, reliable or not, is not evidence of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, WP:USEBYOTHERS pertains to the argument that the TL databases are not reliable, which has been made by others, not the general notability claim. de Bivort 21:03, 29 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) 23:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG, lack of reliable, third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. GOMTV is a cable network in Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.204.16.124 (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify in a more polite way, the GomTV StarCraft2 tournament is broadcasted on Korean cable TV channel anibox. See Korean Anibox page on October's tournament English news article --205.250.61.36 (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is relevant and fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.162.84 (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — 76.185.162.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - There are multiple documentaries on his life as a caster and Progamer. SentchaDNA (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Pburka. This does not pass GNG, and does not qualify for NSPORT. Majority of article is unattributed or not attributed to reliable sources. Over think ingly 07:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After resolution, look over similar articles like Artosis. Over think ingly 07:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion thread under Pburka's comment. (I also took liberty of fixing your link to Artosis' page). --BlueNovember ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is world re-knowned in the Starcraft community. The GSL is on TV in Korea. Stacraft is also the offical sport of Korea according to wikipedia. This is a no-brainer keep, with perhaps some rewrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.138.125 (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — 76.124.138.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep - From WP:ENTERTAINER,

Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Y
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Y
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Y

I don't think that's really debatable. --BlueNovember ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:ENTERTAINER as mentioned above. Marcus1979 (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ENTERTAINER, though the article could do with a rewrite. The Supreme Court (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As mentioned above - Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Guillane (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)— Guillane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - To the Deleters, would you vote down a commentator on games like John Madden? StarCraft commentary/watching is a big thing Hasteur (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John Madden has an extensive resume outside his career as a commentator, including a college football stint, a Super Bowl victory as an NFL coach, and a pitchman for at least half a dozen products in nationwide advertising campaigns. Further, he was a commentator for 29 years for games viewed worldwide by upwards of 90 million people, so your comparison of Plott to Madden is a bit off-the-mark. Horologium (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Known and passionately followed by hundreds of thousands of people. Has videos on internet with millions of hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.227.71 (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — 108.14.227.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Notable viral personalities such as youtube stars have their own wikipedia page. This article details another one with a longer and more pronounced career who has a casting contract in South Korea and does professional commentary for MLG events and large South Korean events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.22.84 (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — 76.179.22.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
EZ Keep - Clearly notable article with great sources, and meets requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER. samrolken (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To all the above, I am not aware of sportscasters ever having been described as "entertainers" before, they are usually considered to be in broadcasting like a news anchor but I suppose I could see how a "color man" could be considered somewhere in between. However, a bald assertion that he meets all points of that guideline is not sufficient. Proof from independent reliable sources is, as always, what is needed. For your reference, here are those points:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

He meets all those points, does he? He's the John Madden of South Korea? Surely there would be hundreds of sources, like there are regarding John Madden, if that was the case, S. Korea is the most plugged-in nation on earth, so there should be piles and piles of good usable reliable sources if he is is super famous as this sudden flood of keep voters is claiming. Bring on the giant pile of reliable sources and I'll gladly rescind my nomination. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like if he meets the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER, it doesn't matter that much if you think sportscasters are entertainers or not. de Bivort 21:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What an utterly bizarre thing to say. If we determined that an article subject was a carpenter and not an athlete, would we then apply WP:ATHLETE anyway? Of course not. If he's not an entertainer then the guideline for entertainers is not relevant and we fall back on WP:N. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -A quick google search for 'tastosis' brings 67,900 results, as far as I'm aware this word isn't used for anything but the tasteless/artosis casting pair and doesn't appear to be a common misspelling. I think that's enough to be notable. Others have already posted some of the relevant links that are reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.114.207 (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — 88.111.114.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Initial nomination is incorrect in its assertion that GomTV is "internet-only and not a television station in any of the traditionally understood meanings of the term." It is broadcasted on the ANIBOX network in Korea. Tasteless plays a prominent role in some of these broadcasts. ^[1]Rendon.smug (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — Rendon.smug (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm willing to believe that I'm wrong about GomTV, although a source or a link or something to back that assertion would be nice. Even if I am mistaken about that the rest of my nomination stands. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the GSL logo on the front page of the Anibox site, aniboxtv.com Protolink24 (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As well as the announcement Here, which I attempted to link the original post. Rendon.smug (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you guys know something the rest of us do not, this translation [1] mentions Starcraft tournaments being on something called "Annie box" but does not seem mention GomTV or Nick Plott. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know Korean. "Gom" means "Bear" and Google translate will obviously translate it literally. The GSL, produced by Gom TV is aired on AniBox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.79.159 (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anibox is a Korean anime channel. This release is announcing that they will be airing GomTV's GSL tournament, which is the only major Starcraft 2 tournament in Korea at this time. As for the show that Tasteless is co-hosting, the description can be found here.Rendon.smug (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
please check your link, it appears to be referencing someone named Nicora A. Plott, I think you might find this more informative. 69.180.26.56 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You ask for reliable sources, but then say the sources that are given (i.e. [teamliquid.net]) aren't credible because it is a community site. It seems to me that you have not done any research into teamliquid. They actually publish articles about the community for the community, they do interviews and write blogs and columns. It is not all opinion pieces either, but news for the community is also reported through that site. Just because ESPN or other Major magazines don't cover the Esports scene does not make it any less viable than Baseball, Football, or other sports. So, please clarify what you want when you say sources, because I can go find sources, but they are all community/team sites. It is very much still in its infancy, but it is just like local journalism for sports teams. thank you 69.180.26.56 (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep"-has a huge unique fanbase, with an informative summary of his life on the wikipedia page. Can it be expanded? Yes. Does it deserve to be deleted? Not one little bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotcot2 (talk • contribs)
I realize you just came off a three year hiatus to make this remark, so you may not be up to speed on current practices here, but please don't post your comments inside somebody else's,[2] and and please sign your posts. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Nick "Tasteless" Plott is an e-sports caster for many events, including MLG in the US, which regularly receives over 100k concurrent viewers (more than the average HBO premiere) specifically for the game he casts, Starcraft 2. Mentions of this subject being niche are uninformed. The most populated Starcraft forum in the non-Korean scene is teamliquid.net with, at the time of writing this, 13,000 active users and over 50 staff. Nick has also done voice acting for a few very notable Korean films, along with his co-caster, Dan "Artosis" Stemkoski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.49.114 (talk • contribs) — 99.65.49.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. The references for this article are exceptionally weak, and the assertion of notability is weak at best. I count three press releases, and an open wiki in the citation list, and the rest of the other sources aren't really about the subject. The first link doesn't seem to link to anything at all relevant (it's some sort of list that doesn't reference either Plott or "tasteless", nor to his brother or the guy he allegedly beat in the first round), and a lot of the other links do the same thing; I don't know if they're broken, improperly formed, or require one to be logged in to the site to view, but as it stands now, there's very little verifiable information. Most of the links don't convey any information about Plott, they simply mention him as a commentator. FWIW, I don't see a whole lot of notability for his younger brother, Sean Plott, either; that article might be a candidate for deletion as well. Horologium (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sean Plott may not be the best sourced article, but there is no doubt in my mind that he fulfills the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER. There are articles featuring him from Forbes, NPR's "All Things Considered", and The Economist. Protolink24 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not even a question, keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.137.116 (talk) — 184.91.137.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - Fails GNG --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You should probably use (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) which will yield articles on the google news (since he is commonly referred to as Tasteless and not as Nicolas Plott, this makes it even harder since tastelss is a relatively common word, though the article definitely needs a clean up. Bopditybop (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)— Bopditybop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
comment - my keep is above, but I think this strengthens it and I'm adding it here so people notice.
WP:CREATIVE indicates notability if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." As the main commentator, he has clearly played a major role in the English-language broadcasts, which are themselves a collective body of work that has been the subject of many articles and reviews. This is confirmed by this RS: [3] which also indicates he is an authority to which Reliable Sources defer for commentary. de Bivort 21:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A two-sentence quote in an article about somebody else? Nobody is disputing that he is a commentator on Starcraft matters in Korea. What you need to find is not a source that quotes him, but rather a story about him. That is how notability is determined on Wikipedia. The idea that Starcraft commentary is a collective body of creative work is a somewhat unique interpretation of that guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak Keep~~ NPR's brief coverage and Forbes's coverage probably let's this cover the letter of the GNG, though the coverage is sketchy enough I'd !vote to delete if that's all there was. But a news archives search turns up huge numbers of in-passing references in RSes and more detailed coverage in things that probably aren't RSes. RS but trivial:[4], [5], [6],[7],[8]. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update to delete. As was pointed out to me the two best bits of coverage actually are for his brother, not him. Hobit (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nicolas Plott has been a gigantic influence on the development and evolution of eSports, which has grown considerably in the recent years, especially outside of South Korea. As eSports like Starcraft II continue to grow, those who played a major role in its growth, such as Nicolas Plott, will need to be credited. The current rate of growth in eSports is phenominal, but if it were to taper off in the coming years, it would be reasonable for this page to deleted. I would urge that if nothing else, we retain this page for at least another year, and if it isn't obvious that Nicolas Plott is worthy of having his legacy recorded in Wikipedia by then, this page would be more eligible for deletion. Thelehmanlip (talk) 2:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep - He's made a pretty strong name in his field, that is e-sports, and certainly fits the definition for entertainer. MrPhelps (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two more inactive users who suddenly came back just to participate in this AFD. There certainly have been a string of amazing coincidences here the last two days... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You nominate an article about one of the most prominent figures of the professional Starcraft community and don't expect people who are generally disinterested with Wikipedia's politics to weigh in? If you had seen one of the documentaries made about him you would know how popular he is. Rendon.smug (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is odd is that people who are generally not interested, and/or have never edited here at all seem to be coming out of the woodwork just to participate here. How, if they are so uninterested, did they become aware of this discussion at all? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All it takes is one person visiting the page to see the big box at the top and suddenly hundreds of people are discussing the article, Wikipedia's rules/policies and perceived similarities to mmo's, ect. People are strongly encouraged not to post unless they have new information to contribute and a working knowledge of the mechanics of the deletion process, but apparently some morons have slipped through the cracks. Rendon.smug (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads me to ask: where is it that this other discussion you refer to is taking place? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday a post about this made the front-page of SCReddit. The original post was likely inappropriate under canvassing, but those of us who are active users in reddit and familiar with Wikipedia's policies have attempted to run damage control in that regards.Rendon.smug (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that would be inappropriate canvassing I'm seeing there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As that may be, the post was made by a non-wiki regular in good faith, and any of us who stayed around are legitimate users also acting in good faith. It would be quite a shame to let the discussion of the page for a person so influential in the community be tainted by one overzealous and frankly clueless Redditor. Rendon.smug (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete who cares about video games? 86.174.111.59 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)— 86.174.111.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, per nomination. Closing admin should take into account the inappropriate canvassing taking place. AstroCog (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 23:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence of the presence of sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- National Public Radio? Forbes? I'm pretty sure those two meet your requirement. One can argue if they are indepth enough to count toward WP:N, but their reliably would seem to be beyond question. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you've overlooked the fact that both the NPR and Forbes stories are about Sean Plott, not Nicolas. The NPR story does not even mention his name a single time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss that. !vote updated. Hobit (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to Delete ~~or Merge~~. Nick Plott is undoubtedly a prominent figure in Starcraft professional gaming. As a player he was briefly world class. As a broadcaster, he is the most famous Starcraft colour commentator. He has been well known in the esport community for at least 3 - 4 years. Recently, he was featured in a documentary, and he's made other appearances in the media (I think in a National Geographic documentary in 2004/05. Has been interviewed by CNN a few times.) I don't know if he deserves his own page, but he belongs on wikipedia. Maybe on GOMTV_Global_Starcraft_II_League's page? FYI, I came to this page after reading StarCraft_II:_Wings_of_Liberty#Professional_competition, which led me to team Evil_Geniuses, which had a link for Plott as a notable alumni. I was a bit surprised that one of the members of team Evil Genius, EG-Idra, did not have his own page. Now I see Tasteless's page is up for deletion! I think the page should stay if it is cleaned up and properly sourced. At the very least, Plott should receive mention on GOMTV's page. E: changed my vote to delete. After skimming the article, reading its sources, and doing a few google searches, there just aren't enough secondary sources to support a quality article for Tasteless. Add Tasteless to the GOMTV page. Maybe in a few years he will have achieved enough notoriety outside of the esport scene to deserve his own page. Steve C. Litchfeld. (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your "changed my vote to delete" bit, I've struck out "or merge". Please revert me if you wish I hadn't done it. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussion, and noting that there are still not decent sources specifically about this person. Most of the sources are unreliable or are only very scant mentions (mostly that he is casting at an event). Polequant (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thus not enough verifiable facts to sustain an article; WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:BLP. Chzz ► 22:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:GNG. Previous arguments regarding WP:ENTERTAINER don't acknowledge that WP:ENTERTAINER details additional criteria for notability, and that simply passing WP:ENTERTAINER isn't exclusively sufficient. Additionally, some aforementioned 'wealth of sources' such as blogs, Youtube links and opinion pieces aren't generally considered reliable sources. The canvassing is disappointing and I don't agree it was done in good faith - if the canvasser had assumed good faith himself, he would have trusted the Wikipedia community to make the correct decision without soliciting outside help. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the canvasser has had any experience with the policies of Wikipedia. Considering his post on a outside website his reason as 'for esports', he clearly solicited help with an agenda. -Overthink ingly 03:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of WP:ENTERTAINER is simply wrong. The additional criteria in WP:BIO can be sufficient for notability. People who meet them are not necessarily notable, but they are likely to be notable. Isron (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, my interpretation of WP:ENTERTAINER isn't wrong, though it may well differ from yours. The term 'presumed' is used heavily in notability guidelines. The section in question is listed under the parent heading 'Additional criteria', which immediately follows the section 'Basic criteria'. Note the word is 'additional', not 'alternate'. In practice, that's exactly what it means - additional. The elements of ENTERTAINER are useful in helping establish notability, in addition to the basic elements we expect all notable people to satisfy. The specifics in the basic criteria section should also be met - an entertainer still should have "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".

It's worth keeping in mind as well that the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria require that the entertainment program itself be notable, independent of whether the tournament is notable. The comparison may be that the Australian Open tennis tournament is certainly notable, but 'Fat Jim's Twitter Commentary from the Stands' probably isn't. The current sources don't really establish this. In fact, the sources in the article at the moment aren't good quality, they're mostly primary sources and the majority have barely passing mentions of Plott. We expect sources to have non-trivial coverage of the subject of the article to be useful. A one line mention that he'll be appearing really isn't good enough. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied; article is purely promotional in tone and has no sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insignia Charge Cards[edit]

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

Non-notable product. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:01, 27 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. v/r - T P 01:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North East Autism Society[edit]

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

Non-notable charitable organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; article lacks depth, sources, and anything to indicate the subject is notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 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. Sandstein 20:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Cornfield[edit]

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

Non-notable author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability guidelines and due to a paucity of independent sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete no references for livign person, in current state article seems like promotional piece, although it seems likely author could pass notability test if proper research were done. 78.26 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous publications. Meets WP:CREATIVE. Nitalake (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable in reliable sources. Number of books written is not a criteria for inclusion. Having lots of line item listings in google books and a single weak citation in scholar (without reference to the actual book being referenced) falls short. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A Foster (actor)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Child actor with appearances in 1 TV serial and an advert. Not enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. No substantial 3rd party references that would pass the WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, primarily due to the lack of independent sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Robert A Foster is a child actor who has been in Just William which has just been nominated for three Bafta Awards, links to independent sources ref BBC and News— Preceding unsigned comment added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) DATE AND TIME 00:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.137.69 (talk) — 92.3.137.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, If you have a look at the links on the Robert A Foster Page you will see he has been in more than just an advert and one TV serial, if you read the info and you can see he has done a short film also.— Preceding unsigned comment added by user name or IP (talk • contribs) 01.01 28 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.3.230 (talk) — 2.219.3.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep , Robert A foster is a child actor was in Just william has been in adverts and deserves a page on here so people can see what this child actor is doing>>unsigned>> 07.3628thoctober2011(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.240.181 (talk) — 81.154.240.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep If you look at Robert A Foster page it has Independent sources and 3rd party references to BBC, IMDB, British Comedy Guide and others, he is a child actor who has been in more than just two things as listed above, if you look at links he has also done modelling and a see a link was added yesterday to say he has done a short film, the page also seems to being viewed so people must be interested in finding out about him. Just William has also just been nominated for three Bafta Awards. Robert A Foster will always be of interest because of his appearance in Just William. Gem09 (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Reliability in some(but not all) of its Sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if anyone feels that I commented incorrectly, I do not use Wikipedia a lot and was looking up info about Just William and cast when I saw the comment about Robert A Foster page, I do think the page is of interest and I found it interesting. I did not get given a link to this page and asked to write a comment about the page. I hope I have done this correct this time 92.3.137.69 (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The child's short career, while being verifiable, fails WP:ENT. His lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 29 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. v/r - T P 01:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Javone Prince[edit]

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

This actor is not notable yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is pretty borderline, but WP:ACTOR looks for significant roles in multiple TV/film/etc. productions. Javone Prince appears to have a significant role in PhoneShop, but hasn't had significant roles in other productions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete No references that I could find to get him in under WP:GNG, so have to go by WP:ACTOR. I agree with Ginsengbomb said, that there hasn't been any significant roles besides PhoneShop. PhoneShop only ran for a seven episode season. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bgwhite (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ENT in that some of his characters repeated in multiple episodes of notable productions... such as playing Jerwayne in 6 episodes of PhoneShop and playing Damien Scott in 5 episodes of The Verdict... showing that such were significant to those productions. Wikipedia does not require a multi-year run for any series for it to itself be considered notable, and while he has had lessor roles (as has all actors), we do not judge by only the the least of what he might have done. Inclusion is based upon verifiability and being perceived as perhaps just notable enough even if not seen as the most notable actor ever, and his work can be verified in multiple reliable sources.[9] AND, his work as a comic has also received attention,[10][11] so the GNG is comfortable approached as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hm. MQS raises some good points here, and the role on The Verdict appears to pass muster by the WP:ACTOR guidelines. Changing my vote. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per MQS. In particular, Prince's role in The Verdict, taken in concert with his role in PhoneShop, suggests he passes the WP:ACTOR guidelines, if perhaps barely. There's enough between these two roles and the coverage of his work as a comic unearthed by MQS above to change my mind, at least. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:41, 31 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 Mining. v/r - T P 01:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral waste[edit]

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

This article was originally PROD'ed as a WP:DICTDEF but the prod was denied with the reasoning "that's a reason to expand, not delete". Unfortunately, the title is too broad to expand the article in any single meaningful direction. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mining. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICTDEF. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:17, 28 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 Speedied as promotional. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portable cluster[edit]

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

This page looks as an advertisement for a particular product without relevant content to Wikipedia. In addition, it has been marked as an Orphan since 2008. Ljvillanueva (talk) 16:24, 27 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. v/r - T P 01:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Rye[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Cited references mention the actor only in passing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I am not familiar with the theater scene in London, it appears to me that the subject, capable though he may be, does not meet either the WP:GNG or the acting-specific criteria for inclusion here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 27 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. v/r - T P 01:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Herzlinger[edit]

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

Non-notable designer. References all appear to be ads, directory entries or "advertorials" WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, spot checking of the sources does not reveal independent, in-depth coverage. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 27 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. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Palestine national football team results[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing there. Waitak (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page author removed AfD tag. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A3 - no content - WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing there yet, and won't be for quite some time. Perhaps it can be recreated later. But not now. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is other pages that has this content in this page for example Syria national football team results 2012, So what is the problem to keep this article.--Uishaki (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N and has no content. - Ahunt (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Bring it back when there's something to write about. Next year, in Jerusalem, I'm sure it will have become notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy "Bring it back when there's something to write about" That is what I was going to say except move the page to userspace and move back when Palestine plays there first game. It would be better than having to restart the article. PS I understand your Pesach reference ;) Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 03:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that there is no content. 11coolguy12 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 18:45, 30 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. This discussion turns on whether he meets WP:PROF #6, with no argument that he meets the main notability guideline. There is sufficient consensus here that the article does not meet the WP:PROF criteria, due to the institution not being a "major academic institution", and that therefore notability has not been established. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Smith (minister)[edit]

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

A "simply not notable" case here, speedy was overturned on the basis that it at least tries to assert notability, so here we are. This article's existence essentially depends on how far we wish to stretch the sub-guideline WP:PROF's criteria #6, "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Ian Smith is the head of the Presbyterian Theological Centre, the theological college for the Presbyterian Church of Australia. I hold that the threshold of "major academic institution" is not met by a private college with a student body of 100 [12]. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PROF is, as written, overbroad, insofar as it would lead us to consider a substantial share of all those who spend a lifetime in a teaching career at a post-secondary school to be notable. The fundamental test of WP:N should govern -- the presence of reliable, independent sources who write about the subject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not notable by any standard, something evident in the text of the article itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination sounds a bit like WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. I don't think we're stretching WP:PROF #6 to say that the subject passes those guidelines. The only point, as far as I can see, is whether the Presbyterian Theological Centre qualifies as a "major academic institution". Now, the number of students is not all that relevant - the significant thing is that it is one of three official seminaries of the Presbyterian Church of Australia. BUT if you look at the notes on the criteria of PROF #6, "if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university..." It puts the emphasis on accreditation. It does use the word "significant", but that is not well-defined, and I would suggest the PTC is significant. Hence, this passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics). It simply isn't good enough to say "WP:PROF is, as written, overbroad" - it is a notability guideline, not an essay. St Anselm (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Not big enough" doesn't have the slightest applicability here, don't even see why someone would cite that. As for "major academic institution", yes, student body size can indeed be a consideration. This is a miniscule, private institution that IMO itself barely qualifies for a Wikiepdia article. If the only thing you can hang your hat on for this guy is that he heads this bitty college, then that really isn't enough. Single notability guides can't be abused in this fashion to give an utter and complete notability failure an article. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree with Tarc. Presbyterian Theological Centre is not a major academic institution. Ian Smith (minister) is no vice chancellor. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on basis that Presbyterian Theological Centre qualifies as a major academic institution and WP:Prof#C6 is satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Presbyterian Theological Centre is not a major academic institution, it is a small specialist training college for people wanting to do Christian ministry, and does not offer a wide range of disciplines. fails WP:BIO LibStar (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the claim of Presbyterian Theological Centre being a major academic institution is so questionable i've nominated it for deletion. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a glance at Google Books shows that to be a poor nomination, and strengthens the notability claims of this article. St Anselm (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF #6, as the Presbyterian Theological Centre is in accredited institution in a country where accreditation is not given lightly; it offers recognised bachelor's and master's degrees (offering a "wide range of disciplines" is not part of WP:PROF, or we'd be forced to delete the article on the Dean of the Harvard Law School). -- 202.124.73.114 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— [[User:202.124.73.114]|202.124.73.114]]] ([[User talk:202.124.73.114]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/202.124.73.114]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

right the presbyterian centre is as notable as Harvard Law School. You have to be kidding me. LibStar (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't be "forced" to delete anything on anything. Wikipedia is not proscriptive. If someone is deemed to have sufficient notability then they get an article; if not, they don't. That's what these discussions are for. Harvard Law School is known throughout the world; I doubt whether the Presbyterian Theological Centre is known even to most Australians. Its principal cannot be deemed to be automatically notable just because of his office. He would have to have personal achievements that made him notable beyond this, and with all due respect to the gentleman, he just doesn't seem to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Principal of a tiny institution (yes, size does matter in these situations). Nothing else that seems to make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While nobody disputes that the university is accredited the claim that this makes it a "Major academic institution" is laughable. Suggest changing the notes on wp:PROF 6 if the wording allows people to wikilawyer that he meets it, while the main criteria clearly shows he doesn't. Yoenit (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just accuse me of wikilawyering? As it turns out, clarification was sought a few months ago, but the discussion didn't progress very far. In fact, I questioned the word "major" myself, but no-one responded. St Anselm (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps even Speedy Keep - the president of an accredited university certainly meets our academic guideline - and an accredited university is, by definition, a major academic institution (contrast with some think tanks on the one hand and a non-accredited university/many high schools on the other). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a university. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a seminary. It grants post-high-school degrees. That makes it a university. I mean, it even grants a doctorate, for crying out loud! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not a university, not even listed on the official Australian government website for universities. http://www.studyinaustralia.gov.au/en/Courses/Universities LibStar (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a list of universities. Try again? Not that a list matters either way - any institution that issues a higher education degree is a wikt:university. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate official Australian government website link would be here. -- 202.124.74.103 (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which says it's a theological college in the broad category of "university/higher education" but not precisely a university. 12:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)

It offers government-accredited higher degrees, including doctorates. That's university-level. It is audited by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). -- 202.124.72.198 (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presbyterian Theological Centre has been closed after the nomination was withdrawn. StAnselm (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not actually terribly relevant. The article on the institution was nominated for deletion after the article on its principal. And I for one voted to keep the former and delete the latter. The institution, as a degree-awarding body, is clearly notable. That does not make the principal automatically notable. For an analogous example, a town is automatically notable; the mayor or chief executive of the town council is not unless the town is of considerable size and importance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree that one doesn't lead to the other, but I think you missed the point. LibStar was arguing that the article on the person shouldn't be kept because the institution wasn't notable; by withdrawing the article, he was implicitly conceding that argument, and that needed to be stated. Not every factor to be considered need be definitive in and of itself. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I'm afraid I didn't miss the point, since I think it also needed to be stated, for the record, that the head of a notable institution is not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete*. He may be deeply involve in religion, education and writing, but truth is none of them are notable. I can understand why there are some keeps for this minsister, however if you break it all down, nothing notable and anyone can be involve in several different activities. Ray-Rays 07:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Would you mind elaborating? Being the head of a university is not something I'd normally discuss with "anyone can be involve (sic) in several different activities." --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with the nominator's view that the Presbyterian Theological Centre is not a "significant" institution for the purposes of that guideline. His leadership of that institution aside, there's nothing else really I can see that would also confer notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:40, 31 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. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text Santa[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, no references, written more like an ad than an article, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 27 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. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cotton[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Also, article was created by SPA user (TomCotton2012) with a strong potential for COI. Arbor8 (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - candidates for such offices are not notable. If he wins then that's another matter, but that's for the future. asnac (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidacy for congress is the subject's only claim to notability, and he's not yet formally a candidate. I believe that an article would be justified should he secure his party's nomination and compete in the general election. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. OK to redirect to a NPOV article about the political campaign, if one is written. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 27 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. v/r - T P 01:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Geoffrey Banks[edit]

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

Unknown actor, never had notable roles. Fails to meet WP:ARTIST by a mile. Created by single-purpose account User:Chezleblanc, likely conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite such memorable roles as "Portuguese Soldier" and "Fleeing Businessman (uncredited)". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep he is on over 100.000 websites for film ... and has worked on some the biggest films and commercials in 2009 to 2011.. no brainer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chezleblanc (talk • contribs) 22:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, at best. Being a stand-in does not a notability make, nor does having only minor descriptive roles,[13] even if in notable productions. And I note that his asserted involvement in many of the articles claimed productions fails verifiability. Failing WP:ENT we then look to WP:GNG... and see he has no coverage in reliable sources,[14] even if searchable in thousands of non-reliable websites.[15] Wikipedia is not the place to host his resume. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Valley Bible Church[edit]

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

Non-notable church. No citations to be found in independent sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I've run a gsearch but no sources that can be used. It doesn't even exist any more, and I don't think the info can even be merged anywhere. asnac (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 27 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. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Education for Ministry[edit]

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

Did a good faith search for independent and reliable sources (using Academic Search Premiere and various Google tools) that would support WP:GNG and came up empty handed. This was previously an AfD candidate, which was a no consensus vote, mainly because of promises from editors to rescue and build the article. This did not happen, and given that it's been four years, seems unlikely to happen. AstroCog (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A gsearch indicates this is a widely used programme throughout the world. Enough to confer notability. asnac (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is indicated in this gsearch? Existence isn't notability, nor is the fact that it may be widely used. Unless it has attracted notice in independent and reliable sources, it probably doesn't warrant an article. I couldn't find enough beyond primary sources and program advertising on pages for related institutions to justify an encyclopedic article. Perhaps this content could be merged with an article of programs of this type? AstroCog (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a little puzzling that there aren't more readily available sources, but I found two sources through GScholar [16] and [17] which discuss the program. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a large number of Google Books references and a handful of Google News references. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- 202.124.75.221 (talk) 23:34, 28 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. v/r - T P 01:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SKATTERBRANE[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination. This was a contested speedy deletion, and later a Prod tag was removed by the Newbie creator. It appears a musical group, which is marginally notable. I'm leaning towards keeping. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but move to Skatterbrane or Skatterbrane Pickups. The subject is not a musical group but an Arizona-based manufacturer of guitar pickups. There are a decent number of Google hits for the name but most of them lead to forums discussions; the brand seems to at least be somewhat well-known among guitarists. Test piggy (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPIt is true there is a band called skatterBRAIN. You will find that the PAF manufacturer--SKATTERBRANE--has a strong following in guitarist circles, and is featured in various forums, youtube clips. I was writing a very long discussion as to why the article should not be deleted, but it was blocked somehow. SKATTERBRANE is very relevant in the PAF pickup modern variant section of the PAF main article. Not only is SKATTERBRANE publish on line with Premier Guitar magazine, but an article is also featured in their physical monthly magazine. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kink56 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Kink56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - this article is about the pickup which seems well respected but not a big mainstream product and doesn't have the kind of following or widespread coverage that would qualify under WP:GNG. andy (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ SKATTERBRANE is also well known in Japan, and has a strong following in Europe, Australia, and two French guitar builders feature their pickups in their builds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kink56 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Kink56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~KEEP~~ Skatterbrane is a very worthy maker of 50's style guitar pickups, especially PAF styled pickups. For the qualities of Tone and Soul in a responsive pickup Skatterbranes are in the very top tier of such pickups being made today, if not above all others, and deservedly are highly esteemed for these qualities. 68Strat— 68Strat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. – most likely a sock puppet of Kink56

~~Keep~~ - The pickup is well respected and has a following of people who value the tone of their guitars, but i think the article could be cleaned up matt —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC). – most likely a sock puppet of Kink56— Theredgrape (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – not sure why it's been AfD'd if the nominator thinks it should be kept. Doesn't that technically nullify the deletion? I'm leaning towards delete due to a lack of general notability. I've noticed that the article creator has voted several times so I've crossed through them. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In procedural nominations, sometimes the point is to bring the nomination forward for someone else, even if the nominee is unsure about deletion. This may be done because (a) an unregistered user, who can't complete the AfD process, thinks an article needs to be deleted, or (b) a proposed or speedy deletion is declined. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 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. Consensus that the article does not meet the WP:ORG notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Baptist Church of Hoover, Alabama[edit]

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

Non-notable church, fails WP:ORG Altairisfar (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no evidence of notability, promotional in tone. 78.26 (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and 78.26. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 17:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article appears to be substantially copied from the church's website here. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I've no doubt that this church has generated enough public interest to garner at least some media attention since 1954, most of those sources are either offline or behind the paywalls of newspapers that do not participate in Google News. The best I was able to find is this: (Skelley, Martha (May 6, 2009). "First Baptist Church of Hoover saves the day for seniors luncheon". The Birmingham News. Retrieved October 27, 2011.) which isn't even really about the church. Also, the article in its current state is borderline copyvio but that's a matter for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete As the first baptist church in the City of Hoover, Alabama (Alabama's 6th largest city) it deserves to be included; that alone is notability. If other Hoover Baptist churches like Hunter Street Baptist Church and Shades Mountain are included then so should First Baptist Hoover. I don't find the information provided to be "promotional in tone" any more than the information provided for other churches. A list of charter members, church officers, and pastors is no more promotional than a list of former U.S. Presidents. The fact the information may have been downloaded in part from a church website doesn't mean the information is incorrect or false. Perhaps Wikipedia should amend the policies to prohibit all churches from being listed unless it is like the 16th Street Baptist Church were the young colored girls were killed in the 1960's. Since when is an official church website not considered references. The Alabama Baptist Association has many references about First Baptist Hoover, but such information is not available online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.229.42 (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you may lack a fundamental understanding of Wikipedia's notability policy. Specifically, notability for church's, which usually fall under the additional notability policy for organizations. Churches can be notable for many reasons, including being historic, being listed on historic registers, having been the site of significant events, being extremely large, etc. But being the "first (insert denomination here) church" in any one of the many hundreds of thousands of communities in the world is not a reason for notability here. Altairisfar (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoover Historical Society lists First Baptist Hoover as a historic church in the city. Therefore it is historic to the area. In an area where the City of Hoover, Alabama is younger than the church. Hunter Street Baptist Church uses Wikipedia for recruit purposes by listing it. It seems biased to prohibit other churches in the same area from having this tool for recruiting the Lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.229.42 (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what private websites are for. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Altairisfar (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why is there no assertion of notability in the introduction? Has this church won zero awards and has zero independent coverage in secondary sources regarding any kind of notability? Dualus (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Albuquerque Public Schools. Davewild (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Ridge Middle School[edit]

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

It's better than some articles on actual high schools, but it has some dead link citations and generally has notability problems (not a high school itself). Raymie (t • c) 14:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in article hints at the significance that would be required for a non-high school to have an article. asnac (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Albuquerque Public Schools, the school district. The school lacks in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Almost all RS coverage is either routine or primarily about the school district. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the school district per standard practice. James500 (talk) 06:31, 28 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. v/r - T P 01:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sukhija[edit]

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

PROD was declined. Concern=Non notable blogger. Sources are only to his blogs and self produced internet movies. Fails to meet criteria at WP:BLP and WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO with no Google News hits, no Google News Archive hits, and one Google Books hit to a book published by the subject of the article. The official website of the subject has "news coverage" type section where news coverage of the subject is indexed. I've been through 5 pages of Google Search results and can find no coverage from independent and reliable sources. For good measure, I checked "Mark's Travel Notes" and "markstravelnote.com" which produce no Google News search hits ([18][19]) and no Google News Archive search hits ([20][21]). OlYeller21^Talktome 14:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Book cited above was not published by the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DieZurcher (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The 'keep' statement above was made by the creator of the article. asnac (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.167.248 (talk • contribs)

Note: The comment by an IP user above is the user's only edit to Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Ah, OK. The Google Books view doesn't provide much information. I think this is it on Amazon.com and he is indeed not the author or publisher. This means that there was some piece of content in the book that was copyrighted by the subject of this article. As he's cited, this might mean point 1 of WP:AUTHOR but I believe that he fails that inclusion guideline as he's only cited once (not "widely cited"). And of course, publishing, writing, or being cited in a single book doesn't inherently satisfy an inclusion guideline. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure about the Amazon link - but this is the magazines official website http://www.swissnews.ch/
    - OK. Even if this was significant coverage of the subject or a citation of his work (which is unclear), the subject still wouldn't satisfy any inclusion guideline. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional citations of the subject can be found at http://www.ifitt.ch/storage/SMM_TO_Benchmarkingpdf.pdf which have been included in the subjects article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.175.39 (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Subject doesn't reach the notability threshold. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be notable as an author, a writer generally needs to have received an award for fiction, non-fiction, or journalism per WP:CREATIVE, or have extensive coverage in dedicated articles in the established press; local reports of signing sessions in bookstores do not assert notability. To be notable, a book needs to comply with WP:NBOOK. Routine book reviews do not assert notability. Neither criteria are met by the subject(s) of this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability and doesn't pass WP:General notability guideline. Nitalake (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hyundai. v/r - T P 01:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate social responsibility at Hyundai[edit]

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

Not sure if this needs a seperate page. Can be a section in Hyundai_Motors Srikanth (Logic) 14:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hyundai (and not Hyundai Motor Company) - I'm not sure that the actions of an obviously notable company warrant their own article. The relevant information covered in this article could easily fit in one section of the Hyundai article. Also, this doesn't appear to be a subsidiary or offshoot of Hydunai so the information described here are the direct actions of Hyundai and not some smaller company or division. Lastly, I can't imagine news articles will directly reference Hyundai's CSR meaning that an editor will have to determine what actions made by the company do and do not pertain to "social responsibility" meaning that much of a potential article could be considered original research. I'm not sure how I feel about that last part but it's something to consider. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-sourced business spam. Hyundai's CSR philosophy can be captured by the company slogan “moving the world together”-suggesting that it is the companies duty to make a better world in close cooperation with all people and groups... Carrite (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Not that this should make a difference but I think it's important to note that the author is/was having trouble with copyright violations and close paraphrases. I would be willing to bet that sentence is close to a sentence found on the Hyundai website. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what's salvageable into Hyundai. It gives scope for building on a lot of material about the group's societal engagement over the years as a whole, much of which has already made it into books, e. g. [22], [23], and some of which was not voluntary, e.g. [24]. By the way, it wasn't intentional spam. It was created by a student on the Wikipedia:India Education Program. Although not explictly stated, the current article and the official website sources it uses are about coporate social responsibility specifically at Hyundai Motor Company, and even more specifically one local initiative in India supported by the Hyundai Motors India Foundation. I can't see how the basic stuff one arm of the group does in this respect warrants a separate article. Most of what the motor arm does is contributing to various existing charities in their host countries, hardly noteworthy or remarkable. Having a "corporate social responsibility policy" in place isn't noteworthy either. All companies have 'em. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 17:35, 27 October 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 27 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. Davewild (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naing Win Swe[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in reliable sources. Sources in article are all from blogs, and all appear to simply reproduce the subject's work (although I can't say for certain with the Burmese one; would appreciate an in-a-nutshell translation from someone bilingual). The usual WP:BEFORE check hasn't turned up anything better, and certainly doesn't suggest notability. Yunshui (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; while I agree with your assessment, I think we're also running into a language problem, since there aren't exactly a lot of translations between Burmese and English. I'm inclined to vote delete at the moment, but I'll try to run a search in some of the libraries around me (I'm around a bunch of universities, so they'll have information if anyone does). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately Google doesn't support Burmese and AFAIK, all other free online machine translation use Google's system. Also , I'm 600 Km away from the Burmese border so there's nithing much I can from here in Thailand. I don't think there's too much of a hurry - we can always relist. The creator has made some decent contribs to Burmese articles, but if this turns out to be non notable it will just have to go. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not like the government there would want people coming in to do research on someone involved in the 8888 Uprising anyways... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are certainly hints of notability in unreliable sources. For example, this Yahoo Groups posting notes his poem being read at Burma Night at the University of Alberta. This forum post indicates that the poem was read as part of a poetry program on Radio Free Asia's Burmese service. The closest thing to a reliable source that I could dig out was this paper on Post-Colonial Society and Culture: Reflections in Myanmar Novels of the Last 50 years (see page 15) which might be a PhD thesis. The authors are identified as U Than Htut (Member, Myanmar Historical Commission. Retired Director-General, Culture Institute and former Director of the Myanmar National Library), and U Thaw Kaung (Member, Myanmar Historical Commission. Retired Chief Librarian, Universities Central Library). -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had found those too but I decided that they were nither RS nor significant coverage. However, as the piece is not toxic, and as we have so little on Burma, I would be prepared to IAR on this and let the article stand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm willing to trust Kudpung's instincts on this. There are enough sources for WP:V, and for the reasons he gives, this is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my comments above and DGG's !vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I checked the creator's contribution as far back as 2005. I say Kudpung's Ignore All Rules recommendation is the most reasonable course of action for this article. PolicarpioM (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be enough sources that show this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty much per Kudpung and DGG; what's available will do at least until Burma opens up, and it's through no fault of the subject that he isn't well known outside of Burma (I know plenty about the situation there, having written a few articles related to the subject, and it's extraordinarily difficult to get any kind of sourcing on it). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:02, 31 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. Sufficient coverage has been found to establish notability Davewild (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SightSound[edit]

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

Borderline CSD for advertising. References are self published, including the refs that are supposed to be from major publications. All are from their own site. Tone is completely promotional and would require a complete rewrite even if they were notable. A speedy wouldn't break my heart, but because they have listed so many alleged citations, it might have gotten kicked out. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely promotional article for an intellectual property company focused on licensing its portfolio of domestic and international patents. The press release based stories actually make the business look like a patent troll [25][26], which argues against this business having significant effects on history, techology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is advertising and would require a fundamental rewrite to ensure NPOV. Furthermore, as most of the references are rehosted on the company's own site, they really aren't reliable without the original article. I can't even find the original WSJ article. There has been some coverage, mostly by CNET, but it's mostly trivial. §everal⇒|Times 18:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my !vote to a Weak Keep on the basis of sufficient independent coverage to establish notability. §everal⇒|Times 17:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can you give us examples of these references? Dennis Brown (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn - I would withdraw the nomination due to the exceptional work done by §everal in properly referencing and cleaning the spam out of this article. The NPOV issues are removed, and it looks much better. Still some cleaning up but it is more than sufficiently demonstrated to be notable now. As he stated, this wasn't an easy one to source (not lots of coverage on patent trolls) but he took the time and did it right. I'm guessing the closing admin would want to keep it open since there is one delete !votes outstanding, but it would be fine with me to close it up as keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched the article - the cleanup seems to be the original page creator's doing. §everal⇒|Times 20:37, 28 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. v/r - T P 01:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Love (band)[edit]

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

Tried to find references for this band to prove they meet the notability requirements, but all I'm finding is blog posts about them, and stuff from other non-reliable sources. I don't think they're quite there yet. No objection to userfying. No objection to keeping it, come to that, providing the sources are found that prove notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have flagged it for Speedy Delete, as TenPoundHammer has done... MikeWazowski (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. →Σ τ c. 00:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Castrol Driver Rankings[edit]

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

WP:Notability, references are almost eniterly self-referential notability has not been properly established after 18 months, WP:Advertising the concept of the Rankings have no official sanction and have no effect on motorsporting competition and are a promotional mechanism for Castrol and Autosport, WP:NOTMIRROR the article does very little other than duplicate data from the source. This does not represent encyclopedic content. Falcadore (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's just a promotional thing for an oil company. Notability not established. Readro (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely promotional, and way different from rankings in other sports which are actually used to determine seedings, championships, etc. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 17:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's basically a Castrol advert, and of no wider motorsport importance or notability. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:19, 27 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. m.o.p 04:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I have discounted spa and ip votes and the established users have a clear consensus to delete. The sources presented have clearly been closely examined and found wanting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford-Georgian Society[edit]

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

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

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

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

An AFD nomination was started for this page, but the nomination process was never completed, so the discussion never took place. I am completing the process now, with the nominator's reasoning immediately below. (I'm remaining neutral in the discussion for now.) Peacock (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.georgianoxford.org This is an official website of Oxford-Georgian Society, which is controlled by Oxford University, all information there is checked by the university, hence there must be no errors. In the opposite this article states different aims of the society, has different logo, (where uses oxford university arms, which is not permitted) and has invalid information, besides there is not enough documentation that once it was a society, because there is only one document of registration, which is not enough for society to be named as oxford university Georgian Society. All documents are provided by the real web-page. http://www.georgianoxford.org/about-us/oxge-documents — Preceding unsigned comment added by OxfordGeo (talk • contribs) — OxfordGeo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Really? Are you seriously claiming that (1) the university controls the websites of all student societies, (2) the university checks all student society websites for accuracy (3) anything checked by the university is guaranteed free from error? Really?? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange case. The original nomination was back in July. The nominator has not edited WP since then and his three edits are all about this deletion nomination. It is unlikely that he will notice that this deletion discussion is now active. His username also suggest that he has an axe to grind about this society. I do not think that all Oxford University societies are controlled by the university in any real sense and I doubt that their web sites are checked. It is probably correct however that if a complaint is made, the Proctors may demand that the web site be changed or taken down. That is also why societies have a senior member. The society was registered and it appears to still exist, so it is unclear what the nominator is saying. I am inclined to think this discussion should be closed, leaving it open for someone to open it again in a proper way, but let us see whether anyone can throw more light on the notability of this article. Oxford student societies can be notable and many articles on them exist. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong keep.~~ I agree, it is dubious why the nomination has been made again. This article seems in line with other wikipedia articles on Oxford societies. [27], [28], [29], [30]. Any additions and changes should be discussed in the discussion page not nominated for deletion. Since its the second time this is happening, it looks more like vandalism. -- Georgians Abroad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.16.70 (talk • contribs)

Second time? The process of adding the AfD templates was done badly. The first time it was attempted, they were removed quite improperly. It is not allowed to remove AfD templates until the debate has finished. They were then added again, but it was not listed for discussion. That has now happened. I did not say that "it is dubious why the nomination has been made again". What are you agreeing with? --Bduke (Discussion) 09:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apologies Bduke, I must have somewhat misunderstood you, I was simply agreeing with your comments that its unclear what the nominator is saying and the way the whole nomination was handled does seem like they just have an axe to grind about this society. We represent the Georgian Community in Great Britain and we would like to confirm that the society is active and is properly registered at the Proctors office. We would be happy to add additional information to bulk up the article. --62.244.16.70 (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Georgian Abroad[reply]

Delete The society (as opposed to some notable Georgian people) is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you note all other Wikipedia Oxford societies none of them have 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject', most of them refer to their won website or university websites, by that logic other society articles should also be removed. I think it should be kept and maybe more links added. Here are few external examples [31], [32], [33] etc. --93.72.213.39 (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)J Wlks— 93.72.213.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. If those subject are equally non-notable, then yes, they are also candidates for deletion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Its a matter of linking the article to additional external sources, not deleting the article because it's still in the process of being bulked up for info. Happy to look into it. --93.72.213.39 (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)J Wilks[reply]
There are many WP articles on Oxford University Societies, but that is because they have been noticed by reliable external sources. It may well be that such sources exist for this Society, but none have been produced as yet. None of the references in the article point to sources that talk about the Society itself. I will be happy to change my view if such sources appear on the article, but for now I support delete as the conclusion of this debate. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for two reasons

i) there are plenty of sources and published materials regarding the Georgian society and fund at Oxford. Some of its best achievements like the foundation of the Georgian section at Oxford University Bodleian library [34], [35], [36], [37] and the Wardrop Fund for Georgian studies [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] etc, have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Its just its currently not included in the article to the required degree, which should be done.

ii) Looking at the reason given as to why the page should be deleted by the nominating party, its states that its mainly lack of detail provided eg aims of the society, outdated logo and lack of links. From the edit history we can see that the previous logo has been removed and only the new one is showing, and new information has been added. Just as in the above case its the matter of adding more information, editing for outdated information and adding more external links rather than deleting the whole article. --85.210.44.131 (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)— 85.210.44.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have looked at some of the links mentioned to support notability: none of http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/csb/rbd.html, http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/bodley/library/specialcollections/oriental_rarebooks/middleeast, http://ukingeorgia.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/working-with-georgia/commemorative-booklet/embassy-history, http://archiveshub.ac.uk/data/gb3105mss.georg.b.1,c.1(p),2,d.1-2,3(p),4-5,e.1-2, [43], http://www.georgianbiography.com/bios/w/wardrop.htm or http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1919187 mentions this society at all. What was the point of mentioning them? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think different sources have a different purpose. Firstly some of the links you listed do mention the society directly, while others are needed to describe the details of the events or initiatives created by the society: http://ukingeorgia.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/working-with-georgia/commemorative-booklet/embassy-history "...After his departure from Tbilisi, Oliver Wardrop began a string of initiatives to bring Georgia to public attention in England. He helped to set up the Georgian Society ...". http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/csb/rbd.html and http://archiveshub.ac.uk/data/gb3105mss.georg.b.1,c.1(p),2,d.1-2,3(p),4-5,e.1-2 - are to show details of the Georgian collection at the Bodleian library (number of books, manuscripts and such. This information is stated in the article, so should be backed primary sources). http://www.georgianbiography.com/bios/w/wardrop.htm - "...Sir Oliver helped establish a fund for the encouragement of Georgian studies at Oxford". http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1919187 - this is given as further reading, which includes private activities of Sir Oliver inc. his role in the set up of the Georgian Society. http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/bodley/library/specialcollections/oriental_rarebooks/middleeast "...Fund was founded for the encouragement of Georgian studies". Even more sources can be added which explicitly state the society, but not sure there is a need to list every single link available e.g. [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] --62.244.16.70 (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Michael J — 62.244.16.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It is quite clear that the Georgian Society founded by Wardrop, who died in 1948, is not the same entity as this student society founded in 2003. The attempts to ground the notability of this entity by references which refer to completely different entities and which do not mention this society at all are thoroughly bogus. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cusop Dingle, you made a repeated comment below, so please refer to my response below, why it should be a ~~Keep~~. --62.244.16.70 (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Damian B.[reply]

~~- I think with new additions, sources and references, the conclusion would be to keep the article. --Charlie P Ryan (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Charlie P Ryan~~ — Charlie P Ryan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Having had a chance to look more closely as this article now, I don't think it meets the general notability guidelines. None of the cited references are independent sources that are about the subject of the article. Peacock (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacock, it seems to me that articles from UK Foreign Office, Oxford Libraries, British Council, National Archives, the Embassy etc are definitely independent sources. It also seems that nominators concern was regarding updating the aims of the society, changing the logo, and changing some information, which seems to have been done, so I would vote for ~~Keep~~. --93.72.213.39 (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)J. Wilks[reply]

The problem is not whether the sources are independent, it's that the independent sources do not support the notability of this society. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to have been an attempt, both in the article and at this page, to represent this student society, formed in 2003, as being in some way the same entity as the Georgian Society founded by Sir Oliver Wardrop, who died in 1948; and in particular to use that claim here to establish notability. No reliable sources have been adduced for this claim, and it seems highly unlikely. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cusop Dingle, having read the article I strongly disagree with your comment. Firstly, it seems you have removed the revised text, which cleared a lot of the issues being discussed. Secondly, the article is about the history of the Oxford Georgian Society, so in line with other Wikipedia articles on the societies at Oxford it goes to provide information in all periods of its history. Just to give a few examples - Oxford Polish Society [49] notes “The society was founded in 1955 as the Polish Students Club by Maciej Giertych and has existed in different forms ever since”, Oxford University Society of Change Ringers[50] notes “...The society was founded by John Edward Troyte... In 1887, the society lapsed, with three brief revivals in 1890, 1892 and 1902, until it was revived in 1920 by Harry Miles and has been in continuous existence ever since” or Oxford University Jazz Society [51] “...after a period of inactivity in the 1980s, in 1994, the modern Jazz Club was reformed as the Jazz Society and is now colloquially known as "JazzSoc"”...this is pretty much standard for university societies, thus it is imperative that the history of the Georgian Society at Oxford starts with the Wardrop Georgian society and its contributions to Georgian activities in Oxford. By the way of background, not just societies but any organisation goes through several iterations of names, legal forms and operations throughout its history – BP was previously known as British Petroleum and even before that as Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Wikipedia article - [52]. Finally, there are official Oxford University documents provided for the today’s society, as well as independent references to the modern society, just to name a few [53], [54], gurieli-foundation.co.nr, [55], [56] etc. For these reasons its a ~~Keep~~. --62.244.16.70 (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Damian B[reply]

I removed material for which the alleged references completely failed to support the assertions made in the article. If this society is indeed the same entity as the Wardrop Georgian Society, then there should be an independent reliable source that says so. If not, we cannot say so. Material about other Georgian societies is likely to be irrelevant to the article, and certainly cannot support the notability of this one. Don't make unfounded assertions -- produce those sources. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are multiple editors and IPs with the same highly distinctive style here. I have asked for an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OxfordGeo. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: Archie Zuckermann (talk · contribs) and Charlie P Ryan (talk · contribs) have now been blocked as sockpuppets and I have struck through their comments here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please allow me to weigh in on this debate. First and foremost, I'd like to remind everyone that its important we assume good faith in trying to reach a consensus, as advised by Wikipedia. As contributors to the discussion, we all should primarily be concerned with two things: (1) examining whether the article meets the minimal burden of proof; and (2) if so, how can it be improved. Having read the article carefully, examined the arguments brought up in the debate, and assessed the editing history of the article, I believe that its absolutely clear that i) the society is indeed a registered society at Oxford University and is functioning, ii) there are external quality sources noting the activities of the society, iii) there is clearly an impressive heritage at Oxford University left by 'a Georgian society' which is also quite well documented. Some of the positive changes have been made to the article to improve it and bring closer in line with Wikipedia standards. This means the administrator of the article, appears to have demonstrated good faith, willingness to compromise, and an honest effort to improve the project in line with Wiki policy, which proves the effectiveness of this discussion to improve the quality of information on Wikipedia. Naturally, the article can and should be further improved and expanded, but Wikipedia entry on a Georgian Society at Oxford University should a Keep. DSloane (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.21.201 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:DSloane does not exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately points (ii) and (iii) of this comment are incorrect. There is nothing of signficance in external sources about the functioning of this society and there is no documentation of a link between "a Georgian Society" founded by Wardrop and this one. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meant to / or should be about the whole history of the Georgian Society at Oxford University. The article would be incomplete and wrong if it omitted the first Georgian Society to exist in Oxford. Some of the wording needs to be amended to address this more clearly. --Archie Zuckermann (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC) — Archie Zuckermann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, the article on this student society should be deleted, as other articles on student societies routinely are, even if they have notable members. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to Wikipedia, the consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes, and it seems to me no one is reading what the previous person has written and the merit of the statement - from the discussion, at the very least, no one seems to doubt there is sufficient coverage of the Georgian Society founded by Sir Wardrop, so there are no grounds to delete the article. There is also no doubt that there is a functioning Georgian Society now at Oxford University, so a mention of it should also be included as per the title of the article - the level of detail will depend on the information available --86.173.48.204 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Closed as a COPYVIO of http://orbiter.dansteph.com/forum/read.php?f=1&i=21281&t=21281 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMS MB[edit]

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

WP:ESSAY ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wiki is not a repository for miscellaneous personal archives or recollections, a diary, a blog, or a place to draft stories. This is precisely the kind of article for which there should be an additional CSD criterion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Wikipedia is not the place for personal musings. Would speedy it (as I imagine Vibhijain would too), but this is so... offbeat that we don't seem to have a suitable criterion. As Kudpung says, we really should. Yunshui 雲水 13:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, it's a complete copyvio of a blog/forum posting from July, so I'm going to closed this per CSD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 27 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 01:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones[edit]

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

Undersourced, indiscriminate. There's no criterion for what constitutes a milestone; it's just a catchall trivia list that goes on forever. Previous AFDs have called for a keep just because some of it is sourced, but there's just no control over it and it's only getting bigger and less discriminate. Last AFDs were full of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEITs — I can't see a single policy based reason for keeping. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - again? As with past nom, I believe the info here is notable. Most of it was in the original Billboard Hot 100 article, but spun off once that got too long. The article does need sources, and I do keep an eye on this, and perhaps (as in the past) some cutting-down/pruning needs to be done so it's not such a dumping ground of minutae. But overall I say it's a keeper, and I'll work with whomever to get it in a more presentable condition. - eo (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So "keep but fix". Are you going to try and fix it, or are you just going to hope the Magical Article Fairy sprinkles her dust on it like EVERYONE ELSE who says "keep but fix"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TPH: If you look at the history of this article and its Talk Page, you will see that I have, several times, worked with others to trim and maintain this article to keep it from getting carried away. I can't patrol everything all of the time. - eo (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is basically a set of statistical anomalies. It was split off of the original article because it tends to grow without bound, and that tendency doesn't go away by splitting it off. Every song in every position is notable in some way: the first song that only occupied prime numbers on the chart;the first song since 2009 whose chart positions when read backwards constitute a Fibonacci sequence; the highest position ever reached by a boy band fronted by a transgender Filipino; something. There's no limits or controls because Billboard has a pressure to hype every chart and "chartwatcher" blogs have to fill column inches. There's nothing of merit here, and it's time to admit it.—Kww(talk) 13:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The place for this sort of info is on Billboard's own website, or on enthusiasts' websites. The issue is given away in the first sentence that claims in bold letters that it's a repository of significant achievements and milestones but fails to define what that means. asnac (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Rationale for previous SK support: I do not share the opinion of know-it-all Wikipedians who believe we should dismiss the previous consensus. However, I do see valid concerns for the article. Instead of just whining and trying to delete it altogether, however, let's trim the fat from it, and rewrite the introduction to clarify that new SECTIONS should not be added without approval on the talk page (as well as re-emphasizing the need for citation). Since we already have several people clearly offended by the article's current state, they will undoubtedly be happy to take the lead on this overhaul. - 72.192.218.251 (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is the user's first edit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having now logged in, I take responsibility for the "Strong Keep" above - while I am not a particularly established Wikipedian, I clearly have worked on this site before. Wise individuals will note, however, that even sincere Wiki-virgins are capable of understanding the virtues of WP, and can formulate cogent arguments based on its principles. I also want to take the opportunity to elaborate on my reasoning, which perhaps could be made more clear. As WP has had no fundamental paradigm shifts since the previous deletion nomination, I see no reason to overrule the first verdict. Indeed, I do not see ANY convincing reason to delete the ENTIRE ARTICLE based on the deletion support thus far - just to make an effort to rein in its expansion, which I entirely agree with. I already made an effort earlier to begin removing certain extraneous (admittedly, just what I consider to be extraneous) detail from the page, but surely people cannot contest the merit of certain, indisputably momentous milestones, such as longest run at #1? The fact is, a page with a more restricted scope CAN feature only notable information, CAN be properly sourced, and CAN be properly regulated - so why throw out the baby with the bathwater? Don't forget, WP has no deadlines. - Drlight11 (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a few days of reflection, as well as reviewing WP policies relating to trivia, I have downgraded my opinion to Merge. I now agree that this should not be its own article, and I think that the question of what is a noteworthy achievement is best answered by what would not be out of place on the Hot 100 article itself. Many of the feats cited on the "List..." page should be relocated to articles on the accomplishing entities themselves (for example, the article for Katy Perry's album "Teenage Dream" can detail its many records). Regarding the previous consensus decisions, I would now argue that this article's tendency to include increasingly superfluous information is inherent, that this could not have been fully predicted in previous discussions (since the tendency is only highlighted by the article continually straying from said decisions), and that, therefore, previous discussions were not as well-informed as this one. - 72.192.212.43 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number of times someone edits is irrelevant, anyone may vote/make a statement about articles for deletion. Personally, I rarely log in.Squad51 (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just an accumulation of questionable facts about the Hot 100. "Milestone" is an inappropriate term to use in this situation, as there is not a clear definition of what a milestone is (in terms of Wikipedia), and I reject it. 11coolguy12 (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, would renaming the article and removing the word "milestone" change your opinion about it? - eo (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider it. However, certain sections, such as "most number two hits" are a little controversial and would be better off deleted. 11coolguy12 (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But for now, I'm sticking by my vote. 11coolguy12 (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A highly detailed, organized and categorized list, countless references, this seems entirely salvageble. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highly detailed, organized and categorized are entirely subjective. Your !vote is purely WP:ILIKEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Milestones in Billboard have been the subject of books and music historians. Much, if not most of, Wikipedia is built on enthusiasts' interests. Look at List of Family Guy Episodes, List of Star Wars planets, Fairy chess pieces, ad nauseum.Squad51 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote is entirely WP:OSE. Not valid, try agian. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything up until the OSE argument is very much valid. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This is actually the fourth nomination, not the second.Squad51 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again this same nominator renominates something for deletion that ended in keep the last time he tried. Whenever someone spends that many weeks at number one, or whatever the achievement is, it is mentioned in the media. They do reference the Billboard quite often in places that cover anything music related. Dream Focus 18:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote does not address the big glob of cruft at the bottom that is unsourced, nor the total lack of criterion for what is an "achievement". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with an article, then handle it by discussing on the talk page and editing it. You don't delete an entire article because you don't like the bottom part of it. Do you doubt that the bulk of things listed here can easily be sourced? Dream Focus 09:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has stated his reasons for deletion above. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that even the stuff that is sourced does not seem relevant. Longest run at #1, fine. Most weeks on chart, fine. The rest I feel is nothing but trivia. Tell me how it's not just a random catchall without focus. And we don't do random catchalls without focus; see WP:TRIVIA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting, informative and needed. Rhain1999 (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is WP:ILIKEIT. Just saying. 11coolguy12 (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – echoing User:Squad51's argument (minus the WP:OTHERSTUFF), surely if chart achievements are the the subject of books and studies of music historians, it's worthy of an encyclopedia article. Could definitely be cleaned up though. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B.g.joshi[edit]

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

The article fails to address WP:BIO. The person described is a compiler of hockey statistics which the websites linked can demonstrate, however these sources are tangential evidence for notability. Fæ (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. andy (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:16, 28 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. Consensus is that this is a valid list. Davewild (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of legislation named for a person[edit]

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

Way too broad of a page, WP:IINFO...does this include laws in every city, county, state, and country in the world? CTJF83 11:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This is a bottomless pit. Who has to dub a law with a person's name for it to feature here? A newspaper? A legislature? My maiden aunt? We might pause if there was even a reason given as to why such laws need to be linked together in a list. I don't know how to add these, but I would suggest also deleting List of legislation named for a place and List of short titles, which are both mined from the same seam. asnac (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding List of short titles, see e.g. the Index to the Statutes and the Index of Government Orders. James500 (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The list is quite obviously not indiscriminate. James500 (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being "broad" is not a reason to delete a page. The page can be split if it becomes too long. It isn't at that stage yet.
"Who has to dub a law with a person's name?" Obviously a reliable source. The names of the UK statutes were taken, in particular, from Halsbury's Statutes, Snell's Principles of Equity, Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, Winfield and Jolowizcz on Torts, The Law of Real Property by Robert Megarry, Constitutional and Administrative Law by Bradley and Ewing, A First Book of English Law by O. Hood Phillips, Britannica, Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice and possibly other books that escape my memory. These names are in widespread use. They are so famous that I assumed that I did not have to put sources in the list itself. Obviously I was wrong.

The other sources I mentioned included Bromley's Family Law, The Criminal Law Consolidation Statutes of the 24 & 25 Victoria by James Edward Davis, Constitutional and Administrative Law by Hilaire Barnett and, in one case, the Short Titles Act (Northern Ireland) 1951 and the Short Titles Act 1962.

The deletion of these lists would make it considerably more difficult to browse for articles on legislation. If there was not a problem, I would not have tried to create a solution. James500 (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDISCRIMINATE is very specific about what it applies to and does not say anything about lists of legislation and is not relevant. James500 (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O. Hood Phillips' book does contain a discussion of the way in which early legislation was named (variously by subject, by the place in which it was passed, after the person responsible for it, and in the canonical manner), so this is an encyclopedic topic. James500 (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So....which criteria of WP:SK applies? CTJF83 08:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the word "speedy" with "strong". James500 (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...also, IINFO doesn't apply to just those specific 3 examples, it's far broader then that. "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"...that's a very broad criteria for what falls under IINFO. Also, can you tell me what Lord Brougham's Act and Nelson Act have in common? They are completely different laws and different countries, so nothing in common other than a law named after a person. If the page was List of United Kingdom legislation named for a person, I wouldn't have as big of a problem with the page, because it would at least all be from the same country. CTJF83 08:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are only examples, where are the words "in particular" or "for example"? All I see is an instruction to remove three types of article. In any event, I don't see an instruction to remove this.
My source says that the four ways of naming legislation that I mentioned above are recognised by academics. So they are not indiscriminate at all.
In my view this list is needed for navigation purposes. Some people don't remember the specific names of these Acts. What they remember is that a statute is called "Lord so-and-so's Act" or "Whathisname's Act". Remove this list and they will have difficulty finding these things.
I don't see why the fact that the list contains legislation from more than one country is a problem in of itself. At this stage it is not overly long and does not need to be broken up. James500 (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does it fail to identify which country the Acts apply to. (Not that that would be a reason to delete it either). James500 (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion provides the opportunity for an interesting application of current list related guidelines. I intend to withhold my position until I see further discussion, but have these general comments. If we were to apply list notability guidelines to this article, then I would expect to see sources that demonstrate Legislation named for a person has been discussed as a group by a reliable source. I suspect those sources exist but a quick Google search doesn’t reveal them. Quite possibly this is because we haven’t really characterized this list very well. Quite possibly (I am not a expert in law), what we are really referring to are Namesake Laws or Namesake Legislation. Whether those are traditional legal terms, I do not know, but if they were, and there was an article entitled Namesake laws (there isn’t), then this list would be a perfect extension of the main article, regardless of how broad a topic that might be. The other alternative is to view this list as a set-index article where the only entries were namesake laws that had WP articles. Red-linked articles would not make the cut. If that is the purpose of the list, then Index of Namesake Legislation is a better title. I'd like to see some of the WP:WikiProject Law weighin on this. I am appending the WP:ARS tag to this discussion, to see if some of the above can be addressed in the article and this discussion. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I put a note on the projects page to link them to this discussion. CTJF83 12:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My source was O. Hood Phillips. A First Book of English Law. Fourth Edition. Sweet and Maxwell. 1960. The author was a professor of law. He doesn't give this group of statutes a name as such. Since that is only an introductory text, I would be surprised if this wasn't discussed in more detail elsewhere. Our article Citation of United Kingdom legislation refers to these names as "'conventional' short titles", although I don't know whether that is a technical term. James500 (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Mike Cline (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OSCOLA refers to them as "popular titles". James500 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC) (4th Edition at paragraph 2.4.1) James500 (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Excellent: If the name of this list was List of legislation with popular names (People) then here's two sources that would meet WP:NOTESAL requirements: "Popular Names of Acts in US Code". Cornell Law School. Retrieved 2011-10-29.; "Popular Names of Laws". Pollak Library California State University Fullerton. Retrieved 2011-10-29. I will add these sources to the article. We should consider moving to List of legislation with popular names (people). The only caveat might be what this type of legislation is called in the UK. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI, it appears that the UK terminology is Short title. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Short title" certainly does refer to a citation that is authorised by statute, but some of these names are not authorised by statute, and I am not convinced that they are called "short titles" by anyone. James500 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - See my comments on the article talk page.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I have answered there. James500 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The main problem I'm having with this list is that there isn't a single common reason why legislation is named after a person, making the relationship among these acts merely superficial. In both the U.S. and the UK, it may have a common name after its sponsor(s) (Lord Cairn's Act, McCain-Feingold). Or, and this to me is the more interesting phenomenon, it may have an informal name based on a victim of a situation that the law is intended to prevent in the future, as in Megan's Law or Jennifer's Law. These are obviously two very different categories of naming.
Obviously the names are verifiable, and the geographic and chronological scope shouldn't concern us because we can subdivide into sublists by country or time period if necessary. But I just don't see the informational utility in listing what is ultimately naming coincidence. Is there something meaningfully different about acts that become known by their sponsors' names from those that don't? It seems to me a rather mundane basis for a list because it's too commonplace. Maybe splitting this into List of legislation known by its sponsors' names and List of legislation known by a victim's name (ick, bad title, I know) might improve it, but I'm still having a problem of "why bother?" postdlf (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt that the names of these Acts would not fit into the List of short titles. James500 (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criterion for a list like this is useful. the criterion for inclusion is that the article is in WP , either under that name, or with it mentioned prominently as an alternate title. (If any one is concerned about notability , the facts that books have been published about the subject should be adequate). As the person interested in this will likely not have much knowledge of why the legislation was so named, a single list would do better than dividing it; the listing should explain the relationship in one or two words. There are, by the way, a few hundred more such items to include. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria is fine. If the list gets too long, it can be split. The list article aids in navigation. Dream Focus 18:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what we have categories for. CTJF83 19:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - List Policy for $200 - WP:NOTDUP What isn't a valid argument for list deletion? --Mike Cline (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is indescriminate, the topic unique, the people are verifiable, more sources can be added to the article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful navigational aid. Certainly whether a piece of legislation is named for someone is objectively and independently verifiable. bd2412 T 18:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep I am confident the list meets WP:NOTESAL requirements for notability and that we can sort out inclusion criteria. Needs work, not deletion. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most relevant and encyclopedic idea for a list page. — Cirt (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per postdlf, basically - these laws are "named for a person" for wildly different reasons, and no encyclopedic purpose is served by grouping them together. If it were split into two or more articles, then we could discuss whether this categorization by shared naming was useful at all, but as it stands, this is not a useful list. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reasons are not "wildly" different. They are, at most, few in number and minimally different, and could be summed up in one as "because that person has something to do with it". The list serves a navigational purpose. If the list can be "fixed" (not that I think it needs to be) by splitting it, or, in this case, since there isn't, at this time, enough to split, by regrouping the entries under different headings, then it shouldn't be deleted. The list is useful, and even if wasn't, that isn't a reason to delete it either. James500 (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micky Noise[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Somewhat promotional. No independent reliable sources at all. (The article has twice been speedily deleted as promotional, and repeatedly recreated by the same single purpose account each time.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO through lack of independent, reliable sources, to say nothing of WP:NOTPROMOTION. SPA account's history suggests this is just going to keep coming back unless protected. Yunshui 雲水 12:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 27 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 Nomination withdrawn. Clearly there is enough evidence of notability. Thanks to the editors who have shown this. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catapilla[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying any of the notability guidelines. No independent sources at all. (Article was deleted after PROD, and recreated. Article was nominated for speedy deletion (CSD A7), which was declined with no reason given. I cannot imagine why the speedy deletion was declined: I can see no claim of significance in the article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I declined it. It makes an assertion of notability that, if backed up by references, satisfies WP:MUS criterion #5 (easily satisfying CSD A7). Vertigo records is a major label, and the article says that Catapilla released two albums on this label. I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't consider this a claim of significance. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further note The band clearly existed and certainly released two albums on Vertigo. A cursory google search reveals this much. They had a relatively short career in the early 1970s, so it's hardly surprising that they're not as internet visible as current bands, but they clearly have a following large enough to merit a recent re-release of their albums: [57]. They're profiled in Cesare Rizzi's book on Prog Rock (in Italian) Rizzi, Cesare, Progressive, giunti, pp. 81–82. Also some information here: [58]. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely independent source given (bandtoband.com). Satisfies the notability. Why are people like you even here? What a site. Full of self-appointed know-alls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxp3456 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a real band (I personally own one of their albums and it is rather good actually) and two releases on a major label like Vertigo are enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Keresaspa (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wish there were more material accessible on line, but, as Catfish Jim notes, the 2 albums pass WP:BAND #5. For what it's worth, Allmusic not only covers the band but gives the second album, Changes, a rave review,[59] and asserts that the band "created some of England's most innovative music of the early '70s" and that "the group's influence continues to be felt."[60].--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:36, 28 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. Davewild (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koryu Uchinadi[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. None of the sources mentioned in the article discuss this martial art, and searches fail to find any non-primary sources. Worth noting that article was apparently created by a COI user (the founder of the style). Yunshui 雲水 09:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a relatively new martial art which claims to have roots hundreds of years old, but no independent proof of that is given. The article gives no independent sources for any claim regarding this style--mentioning 19th century martial artists as people who led to the development of this art 100 years later has little to do with this style's notability. I found no independent evidence that shows this art meets any of the notability requirements at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no independent sources that show this style passes any notability criteria. The COI issue is correct, but could be overlooked if notability was shown. Astudent0 (talk) 17:25, 31 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. G11. Salted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuyan Pill[edit]

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

The article fails WP:PRODUCT. Previously speedy deleted as an advert, some sources have been added and the article recreated with the same text. There is no sign that the sources make any specific mention of Fuyan Pill as they discuss Chinese herbal medicine in a generic way. I find no matches in GBooks or GNews and a cross-search in JSTOR, SCOPUS and WoS for "Fuyan Pill" finds no academic quality sources that use this term. Fæ (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt I tagged this for speedy the last time round. When I did a search to determine if the product was notable, I was genuinely concerned by some of the pages which I pulled up; there seemed to be quite a number which indicated that this product may a "scam" and a "bogus" medical product. At the very least it is known for being an item constantly spammed on blogs and message boards: a discussion about this seen here. The article itself makes some truly extraordinary unsubstantiated claims (for instance "Fuyan Pill is shown to be effective in eliminating varieties of pathogenic bacteria, such as germs, virus, mycoplasma, Chlamydia, etc") none of which, as Fae points out, can be credibly sourced. Such statements could potentially be very dangerous. France3470 (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would strongly support salting along with future variations of the name if created. If suitable sources can show this is a notable scam, then there may be grounds for a more balanced article. --Fæ (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's shocking. In that case, certainly Salt. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As seems to be the case with this subject, there is a lot of talk about it but really nothing that could be considered a suitable source of information, either in support of the product or otherwise. I also doubt there is any way for us to reasonably make conclusive decisions about the validly of the product, so it is probably best to err on the side of caution and not have an article unless reliable information is able to be found. France3470 (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 27 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. Wifione ^Message 08:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crawley Framework[edit]

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

No reliable, published sources so article is unverifiable and does not meet our general notability guidelines. Contested prod, so bringing to AfD. Sparthorse (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, no independent sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (agree - non-notable content provided by WP:SPA) TEDickey (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's an informative article that shouldn't be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmg.utn (talk • contribs)

I doubt anyone disagrees that it is informative. The question is whether it is notable WP:GNG. There is no evidence of that. If you have some, now's the time to show it (and to edit the article). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 31 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. Wifione ^Message 08:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jackson (electronic sports player)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in RS sources (more available online). The Interior (Talk) 19:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again mind providing them. Ridernyc (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, already have. The Interior (Talk) 19:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MLGPro is considered a situational source as it's considered a primary source, and thus cannot establish notability (it runs many of the competitions). Whether that sways anyone's decisions I can't say, but I wanted to point that out. --Teancum (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that MLGPro shouldn't be used for notability purposes. I was more referring to the North County Times ref, and coverage like this in the Globe and Mail. The Interior (Talk) 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per current sources establishing sufficient notability. Salvidrim (talk) 22:25, 27 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) 22:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The few sources it contains suggest the notability of the subject. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:13, 28 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. Wifione ^Message 08:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hewitt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 08:48, 27 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) 22:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable third-party refs. The Interior (Talk) 23:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreance with The Interior, reliable sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the PBS source, and per the above. It is a bit thin, and I'd love to see more non-gaming sources, but the PBS profile puts this one as a clear keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:46, 31 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. Wifione ^Message 06:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruxandra Colan-Petcu[edit]

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

None of the WP:ARTIST criteria are met here, and there are no independent sources confirming notability. The first footnote refers to a pamphlet presented by a genealogical hobbyist, and is hardly relevant. Same with the second, which is a personal website. The third appears a dead link, but in any case, if all it confirmed is that she's on the staff at a college, that doesn't bring us very far in establishing notability. Like many of the crufty articles on the Filotti family that we have already gotten rid of (Traian Filotti, Mircea Filotti, Ion Gr. Oprişan, etc), this too should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete partly in agreement with Biruitorul's well-formed argument, and partly because all I could find in a long Google search was circular links to WP mirrors and piggyback sites such as this (Who knew that "nervous energy may have caused Ruxandra to bite his nails"?). ClaretAsh (talk) 14:05, 13 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} 06:49, 20 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} 08:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not just because I don't like being made to read about numerology (numerologists beware!), but also because, as Biruitorul notes, there is not one decent source, independent of the subject, to be found on this lady. Dahn (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wifione ^Message 06:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belron US[edit]

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

Delete or possibly merge into a Belron article. It is a non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a lot of work, but Safelite is a big operation. Hoover's says its annual sales are $414 million. - Eureka Lott 01:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that sufficient to be notable for WP? Also, to call it a "big operation" is subjective. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CORP doesn't offer much guidance when it comes to corporate size, but I think there are more than enough secondary sources to demonstrate the company's notability. - Eureka Lott 00:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since it is always easy to find refs for a company we will end up with article on HUGE numbers of companies. I know WP is not paper but the admin overhead and bias would be a real problem. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:21, 22 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} 06:55, 20 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, Davewild (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Safelight is a big corporation, this article is cretainly legnthy enough, just does not provide enough sources, I would love to defend this article, but it needs a few more citations first. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:06, 28 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. Wifione ^Message 06:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianne Sloan[edit]

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

Nomination on behalf of Special:Contributions/99.101.160.126, the concern is: this person is not notable and the links provided in the references are all dead. It appears to be written by someone trying to promote themselves Pgallert (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is an apparent vanity article. Google searches clearly show a lack of notability. Also, the creator user:Scphantm has no other wikipedia contributions, which is a clear sign that this is a vanity article. Since the deletion request, the article was edited by User:Hippypoet27, who has never contributed to wikipedia in the past and just happens to use a number in their user name that is the exact age of Brianne Sloan. Blueyez941 (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nowadays it seems like almost everyone is a "blogger." This person is in no way "notable"--not even close. I did a google search and found no major publications mentioning this person. Besides an arrest for petty theft (http://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Brianne_Sloan_1384027/) I could not find anything but social media and self promoting sites. Primus128 (talk) 22:47, 29 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 Chrysler Canada. Wifione ^Message 06:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plodge[edit]

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

Utterly unsupported (and very likely unsupportable) article that openly states right in the first sentence of the lede, that the subject of the article is an "informal name"—with no source attributed, ever, since the article was created in 2005. As such, it violates WP:NEO. Also appears to violate WP:NOR. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I'm nor sure if there is a merge target. Automobile Quarterly has a pretty big writeup on Plodges. This article notes the name Plodge being applied to Canadian made vehicles for Chrysler Plymouth Dodge. I suspect there are other auto books and magazines that exist that cover this. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Automobile Quarterly article looks a little dubious to me; note the scare quotes around the word "Plodge", indicating it is a coinage. If there's reliable support for the formal use of this term, then by all means let's keep the article, but so far all I'm seeing is conjecture and and coinage. As for a merge target, it's not at all clear to me that one is needed. If this article's subject doesn't meet the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia, then no merge target is necessary. If a merge target is necessary, we might look at CKD. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - There's no need for formal use of the term for there to be an article. -- Whpq (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable "pop" term used to describe the vehicles. The references found above convince me - but they need to be added to the article itself - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 26 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, Sandstein 06:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep so long as AQ reference added to article, plus any more if available. Other alternate is to merge into History of Chrysler by adding a Canadian History section, and then redirecting. 78.26 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If consensus is not to delete, then I would definitely throw my support behind this what you propose—which would almost certainly spur more and better coverage development. I just don't see how this neologism merits its own article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really quite shocking that the first response included sources that clearly demonstrated the distinct notability of this term. Nevard (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do they? Please explain. I see them demonstrating usage, but not notability. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Wonderfully written I hate to have to see this one go, but its creator provided no sources, I know none, if anyone has any please add them to the article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge into Chrysler Canada, I didn't see this article before. Another source in Car and Driver here [61]. The current article is pretty worthless as it stands as it's all unsourced editorial speculation, but the term does exist. Car and Driver and Automobile Quarterly are both reliable sources and the term occurs on so many other related websites that it can easily be shown to have had enjoyed significant coverage and could be used as just as "Judge"is used on the Pontiac GTO page. ~~and the current Chrysler article is too broad to merge it into. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)~~ Mighty Antar (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - it needs sourcing, for sure, but the content is interesting. I guess it could be merged, but I feel as Mighty Antar does that it might become lost on that page. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The Plodge term is an non-notable and "informal name" that does not deserve a separate WP article. There are many informal names for some cars, but they are not used for WP articles (for example, "Judge" for the Pontiac GTO and "Hash" for some of the models following the 1954 Nash and Hudson merger). Just because it was used in an opinion piece in Car and Driver should the "Plysler" term also have an article in WP because it is also mentioned in this source? There are many examples of mixed models manufactured by automakers that were made or branded specifically for the Canadian or Mexican markets. In addition to the mixed Chrysler models, there have been specialty Ford models based on Mercurys, as well as various Chevrolets with Pontiac sheet metal (and vice versa), many with names rarely if ever seen on the U.S. market. Yet, there are no separate articles about these Chevtiacs! However, there are specific articles about Ford Motor Company of Canada, General Motors Canada, and Vehiculos Automotores Mexicanos that describe production and models sold in their respective markets. Therefore, the Chrysler-based vehicles designed for the Canadian market should also be merged into the Chrysler Canada article, not kept under this informal name. CZmarlin (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chrysler Canada, an article that hadn't occurred to me to seek. This merger is obvious. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 06:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of Nobel Prizes by country[edit]

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

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. This is a pretty classic example of original research. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless multiple, reliable independent sources give this topic significant coverage. Otherwise , it is original research. I am tempted to tear these conclusions apart, but that would be my own original research, so I will refrain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Several papers[62][63] cover the topic in addition to the one by Jürgen Schmidhuber cited in the article. The title needs some work. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be a notable topic, although something interesting to speculate about. It really needs to be a sentence or two in "Nobel Prize" or "History of science." Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that this needs an article Shii (tock) 12:51, 31 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. Wifione ^Message 06:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PRABHAT KUMAR MUKUND[edit]

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

Hagiography initially created by a COI account. Despite warnings not to remove my blp prod, since there are no sources, and chiding that the ridiculous amount of praise is excessive, my attempts to keep this limited are being reverted. He's a politician, we don't even know what office he holds, but this article is ridiculous. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the WP:BLPPROD tag is removed, the policy still applies. I have re-added the tag to the page. Yunshui 雲水 09:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Even if this subject is notable, I would rather do a rewrite with a blank slate; this article is completely irretrievable in its existing form, and should really be speedied. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Poorly written, advertizment. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. From the sources I can find, I can only confirm that he is a Congress party politician. No evidence that he has ever been an office holder. No in-depth coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources have now been added to the article, so farewell BLPPROD. However:

1 doesn't mention Prabhat Kumar Mukund at all.

2 is another source which doesn't mention Prabhat Kumar Mukund. At all.

3 is a dead link, and the Hindustan Times does not have an article with that title in its archives.

4 again, doesn't mention the guy at all.

In other words, none of these sources pass either WP:NOTE or WP:V. It also may be worth noting that article creator User:Congresscommittee appears to be socking to circumvent a username block. Yunshui 雲水 08:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Precious little mention of this man on the web through Find Sources temp added in the Talk Page of this travesty of an article. All I can find is that he is mentioned in The Times of India [64] as one of a number of congressman who demanded that stagnant water be removed from fields. This does not add up to significant coverage under WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG guidelines. Acabashi (talk) 10:35, 31 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 Miss Earth New Zealand. Wifione ^Message 06:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Crofts[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. no established career. simply winning Miss Earth New Zealand doesn't guarantee an article. and the coverage merely confirms she wons it, nothing indepth [65]. at best she deserves a one line mention in Miss Earth 2008. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete checked all the usually .nz sources and completely failed to find any recent material or on-going coverage, not even mentions of her supporting the peagent in subsequent years. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, just redirect: to Miss Earth New Zealand.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect to Miss Earth New Zealand. I trust the nominator will nominate all similar non-notables from Category:Miss Earth delegates-Kiwipat (talk) 02:09, 29 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. Wifione ^Message 06:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"King Of The Hill" Syndrome[edit]

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

Article lacks any reliable sources that would allow the reader to verify its content or assess its notability. Per the author's comments at the talk page, there will be evidence for this theory "in 12 months". Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the article should be deleted until the evidence is available in published, third party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sparthorse (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined the G3 speedy on this page because nonreliable sources apparently discuss it, so it's quite possibly not a hoax. However, the apparent absence of reliable source coverage means that we likely shouldn't have an article on it, and the burden of proof is on the creator to find those reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When the sources exist, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. If reliable sources will be available in a few months, then the article is premature and should be deleted. Now, if those sources do come out and do show that there's some notability here, then perhaps we need to revisit this one. But not today. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A1. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 04:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addey and Stanhope School Song[edit]

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

Possibly coyrighted lyrics, and even if not, there is absolutely no need to have an article which consists of nothing but lyrics. At most, a paragraph in the school article would be appropriate, if it indicated the history and importance of the song, and not just the lyrics. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A1. →Σ τ c. 02:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by this process if the speedy isn't accepted. The article consists of nothing but lyrics which are non-notable. Stormbay 03:09, 27 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The World Is Ours (Upon a Burning Body album)[edit]

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

Album of a band without a WP article Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A9 The album may have charted, but it was only Top Heatseekers, a chart for new artists. Also, it's clear the band isn't notable as their article has been deleted at least 6 times — I looked but couldn't find any sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the CD article, but if someone wants to incubate the band article, that would be fine with me. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 27 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. Wifione ^Message 06:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebound ball[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No evidence of notability. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 13:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although sports MADEUP in school one day can sometimes attain notabiliity (Rugby football, Eton Fives), they generally have to be played in more than one school before such notability is established... No coverage, no sources = no reason to have an article. Yunshui 雲水 07:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a Made Up Sport. If you prefer, you may think of this as an unsourced original essay, that's another way of saying basically the same thing... Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 27 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. Wifione ^Message 06:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Alejandro (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Repeatedly deleted at Enrique Alejandro. No 3rd party sources that show notability (just a blog and Facebook). Fails WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not establish notability. Not even close. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable biography. Stormbay (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 27 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. Wifione ^Message 06:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Siekavizza[edit]

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

PROD removed; speedy declined.

WP:N, WP:BLP1E, person's not even confirmed dead, based on rumors and speculation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, this is a case of WP:BLP1E. However, I think the following sentence from BLP1E applies, "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources". There are a ton of articles out of Guatemala since July and articles are still being written. This has parallels to the ongoing AfD of Amanda Knox that will likely be kept... Alot of past and ongoing news raises this to a significant event in Guatemala. Bgwhite (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Notable in Guatemala - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing notable about this person. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has recieved alot of attention in Argentina it appears.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence. I really wonder if you even read this AfD given the subject is in Guatemala not Argentina???! LibStar (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As my mom would say, "all those Mexican countries are the same!"--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a big deal regionally. Prensa Libre, the premier Guatemalan paper, is all over it, as are other regional sources.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:02, 29 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 Boldly redirected. This is not Articles for Redirection. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of solo piano compositions by Johannes Brahms[edit]

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

The content of this article is redundant. It can be found on List_of_compositions_by_Johannes_Brahms_by_genre#Piano. - Gus ^{(T, C)} 2011-10-27 00:28Z 00:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just redirected it there rather than start an AFD. postdlf (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:37, 27 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. Wifione ^Message 06:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-Architecture, The Role of Neuroscience in Architecture[edit]

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

WP:NEO, in the words of the article itself: "The term Neuro-Architecture is a word only recently gaining credibility and attention within the public and the Architectural community. " Term is not in general use or otherwise notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the posted comment as it is unclear what the quantifiable definition of "in general use" is or why this article is not notable. Please provide clear measurable criteria to when a term crosses the acceptable usage threshold. Any term such as Neuro-Architecture will start life at some point and its acceptance will grow. The presence of verifiable resources indicates that this term is in existence beyond my article and therefore should not be subject to speedy deletion. Dennis Brown, who are you and what is your area of expertise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria.E.Norman (talk • contribs) 11:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Victoria.E.Norman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Victoria E. Norman, who are you and... oh wait, you're an SPA who put a blathery OR essay on Wikipedia. I see scattered use of the term, most of them clearly treating it as a neologism. EEng (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an article. Doesn't even explain what the subject is. WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR. References don't establish notability. One of the refs doesn't mention architecture. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 27 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, G11. No judgment on the book's notability if someone can find some sources and try to start from scratch, though we do not appear to have an article on its author. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flashbacks Through A purple Haze[edit]

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

Crystal-balling on a new book. Book is new, thus has not established notability, failing to meet general criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:17, 27 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.

^ http://www.thisisgame.com/board/view.php?id=695279&board=&category=13438&subcategory=&page=1&best=&searchmode=&search=&orderby=&token=

[1] ttp://www.thisisgame.com/board/view.php?id=695279&board=&category=13438&subcategory=&page=1&best=&searchmode=&search=&orderby=&token=

[1]