Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 4

< 3 October	5 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 no consensus for Ciprian Dinu with leave to speedy renominate. Delete the rest. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Vascan[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who has not played in a professional league (Romanian Liga II is not) and thus fails WP:ATHLETE as well as WP:GNG Black Kite (t) (c) 23:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following six identical articles

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Having never played in a fully pro leauge and not having received significant coverage, the subject fails both relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the six newely nomminated articles as well per the same rationale. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero GNews hits. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the two comments above were made prior to nommination of the six additional articles. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the others listed, too. All fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Such web hits as I found were all WP:ROUTINE player directories and side mentions in articles about games or their teams, plus the odd facebook or youtube link. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't know much about Romanian soccer, but are you certain Liga II is not a pro league? As far as I can tell, teams can be relegated from or promoted to the top Liga I, which is pro. By itself that doesn't imply professionalism, but given the number of pyramid levels that qualify as pro in other countries, I'd be surprised that the Romanian second division might not qualify. Cmprince (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not one of professionalism, but of full professionalism. Teams at the top of the table are undoubtedly professional, but the teams at the bottom are not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dinu - I don't like multi-nominations like this because it's difficult to evaluate several articles with different circumstances, and clearly the Dinu article is very unlike the others. He's played two seasons in the fully-pro Liga I and easily passes NFOOTBALL. A brief check of gsp.ro's search function shows that the article would likely meet the GNG as well. Jogurney (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dinu still fails notability. Yes, you are right, it turns out that one of Dinu's previous Liga III sides, CS Jiul Petroşani, did manage a brief spell in Liga I (they're back to Liga III). But NFOOTBALL is just a rule of thumb. I googled "ciprian dinu" at gsp.ro. 57 hits. Translated the first ten: textbook collection of WP:ROUTINE mentions. Best are the odd paragraph saying he's transferred teams, but even those are brief and colorless. The rest are your standard collection of player directories and side mentions from game reports. I think he gets a one-sentence quote in one of them. I look at his CV and assume he will not be notability, and I find nothing in the article or on the web to contradict that assumption. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't follow all of your comments. Jiul was not a Liga III side while Dinu was with the club - he played two full seasons in Liga I and another in Liga II. We don't really care where the club might play today or two decades ago. I understand that much of the coverage of Dinu is routine, but I don't believe all of it is. I realize the NFOOTBALL is only a guideline, but so is the GNG. The article needs some attention from a user with Romanian-language skills, but it's clearly verifiable and there is plenty of coverage available to build the article. Dinu's career appears to have had it's ups and downs, but with two seasons in Liga I, he has done more than the typical football player. Jogurney (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dinu - as stated above, he has made appearances in Liga I, and therefore passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Dinu - I've checked Romaniansoccer.ro to see if any of the other players have appeared in Liga I, and found no evidence they have. Also, I'm not seeing anything beyond routine coverage of these athletes. Jogurney (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Putnam[edit]

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

Episcopal priest known only for admission of sexually abusing 4 boys, and for unsuccessful candidacy for New York State Assembly. Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to failing WP:BIO there are legitimate concerns about WP:BLP here. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E. St Anselm (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage. The only source I can find talking about this is blog.syracuse.com. JORGENEV 06:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lahore Times (Lahore)[edit]

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

Online only newspaper, does not meet WP:WEB as no evidence of significant coverage about the newspaper, no major awards, appears promotional. Heywoodg ^talk 21:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two GNews hits, both references in passing. Didn't really see anything RS in regular Google search. Site layout seems a more-or-less straight steal from NY Times, populated with all(?) or mostly all wire service stories. I do kinda like 'em for honest description in their brief WP article: "The Lahore Times owned by a Graduate Student and works with freelance writers and several bloggers. The owner has a little experience in News Media but still try to get knowledge of News Media from Newspapers...Welcomes everyone to join us at The Lahore Times to share their experience." More like a notice to be tacked up around the neighborhood than an encyclopedia entry, but if anyone can provide RS sources, will be happy to re-evaluate. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good luck with the venture but it isn't notable at this time. - Whpq (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worldcat lists The Friday Times as an eNewspaper published from Lahore, but not this eNewspaper. Unscintillating (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G4) by Fastily. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actor Max Dell[edit]

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

Actor that fails Wikipedia:ENT. Only one listing on his IMDB page, furthermore, I could not find any third party sources. Thoughts? Tinton5 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The previous text needs to be checked but this subject previously has an article (Max Dell deleted after a short AfD found it to be a hoax (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Max_Dell). OlYeller^Talktome 21:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artak Sargsyan Charitable Foundation[edit]

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

Nothing in the article supports notability of this group. On the talk page, an author acknowledges that the group is new and hasn't received coverage yet. Google search results seem to be all Facebook, blogs, or personal web sites. Auntof6 (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in GNews. Regular hits are as nom described. Top regular Google hits after WP are to founder's linked-in and to this organization's Facebook page, which is the one link on the WP article, so I don't see how anything is lost by deleting until this becomes an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia entry. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piston,Crankshaft Design[edit]

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

Student essay and fork of piston and crankshaft. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essay. Mangoe (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student book report on subjects considered at length elsewhere in WP. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. When I originally investigated this article I found also that it is a close paraphrasing (duplication detector) of too many web sites and blogs to list them all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close without prejudice to future action. This is another IEP article and once again it's just another unstructured factoid dump. However this issue is much bigger than the normal AfD traffic and AfD is neither the location nor process to sort this situation out. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand's Top 100 History Makers[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as all television programs screening on national tv appear to be considered notable. I've added some reviews to indicate notability. The issue of whether such a list in an article is copyright needs to be discussed at a central location rather than in many different AfDs. My opinion is that the list is not copyrightable, and the value in the TV program is the detail about the life of each person, not their name and list placement. While we have biographical articles about most of the people on the list, these do not as far as I know draw on the television program or book for their detail. If despite this the list is unacceptable, it can be removed and replaced with a paragraph just mentioning the highest ranked people on the list, as some of the reviews do.-gadfium 19:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We do have a list of 100 Greatest Britons to be fair which did garner a fair amount of external discussion. The NZ one would obviously not get the same amount of coverage, but did generate a book and coverage on news sites such as Scoop as well as comments on "nzhistory.net". Is the depth of coverage enough to make it notable? I would lean towards a yes, and therefore keep. The article certainly needs work though. Heywoodg ^talk 21:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Scoop is a press-release sight and not suitable for proving notability. nzhistory.net is an official MCH website staffed by professional historians (+others), so editorial content is gold (but MCH allows comments from the public on some websites too, so it has the be editorial content). Stuartyeates (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of ~~PRODs and~~ 2 dozen AfDs today by the same nom, of ~~many~~ most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This appears to be based on the outcome of the recent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/200_Greatest_Israelis, which means that the notability of these articles comes down to the standard notability issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the nom's incorrect assertion that there may be a copyvio issue here is not a basis for deletion here (as reflected above). It would be good for him to strike it. And that his assertion in his last sentence in his nomination does not apply here (that is worth striking as well). The only thing even left to discuss, out of his three-pronged nomination above, is whether the list is notable enough or as with Lists of New Zealanders and the like otherwise appropriate to keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. I see no significant coverage as required. I see two articles which each have a couple of paragraphs (but which share an author) and I see a single paragraph in an apparently independent forum. This is not significant coverage, this is routine coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability criteria for TV programmes. Deb (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as for the other similar nominations. It's not copyvio, as has been shown pretty thoroughly. As for the nom's argument, we have no such policy. If the list is cited elsewhere, it's notable under our ordinary guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [1].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the majority of the editors who have commented on this page that sufficient notability has been evidenced. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Největší Čech[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and interesting topic. The article is not just a list and is expandable, as the competition attracted the attention of almost all major Czech media. An interesting detail: The Czech Television decided to exclude Jára Cimrman (a fictional character and a very popular "genius" appearing in the plays of Jára Cimrman Theatre) from the poll. A non-existent personality received tens of thousands of votes and there was a danger that Cimrman would win the whole poll:) Source: Mladá fronta DNES [2] (in Czech). I don't think it is a copyright problem, the result (the names) of this poll contains additional explanatory information which is not copied from any copyrighted source, as far as I know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of ~~PRODs and~~ 2 dozen AfDs today by the same nom, of ~~many~~ most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Only one independent ref. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Keep as per refs by Vejvančický, conditional on a native speaker confirming that those are what they appear to be and that at least some are reasonably independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the missing citations. I believe that this problem is now resolved. The articles provides an interesting insight into the cultural and historical awareness of the Czech society in the 21st century. The information is verifiable and there's no benefit for Wikipedia in deleting this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that in the case of Vej -- who has not rebutted the assumption of good faith -- we would assume that "those are what they appear to be".--Epeefleche (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to cast doubt on Vej, I was meaning to make it clear that I couldn't evaluate those links in any meaningful sense. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. The convention that I have noticed, when I've worked with foreign language-sourced articles at AfD, is that oftentimes (if the editor is in good standing, senior, and has not done things that lead one to consider that they have rebutted the assumption of good faith, is that other editors say: "Foreign language sources accepted on the basis of AGF". Except for the fact Vej is a sysop, I see little reason to not believe him. _{(satire, if that was not clear).} Other times, editors run the sources through googletranslate, to assess for themselves. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your uncertain confidence, Epeefleche :D The English Wikipedia is a modern Babel tower and G-translate is often the only tool suitable for checking non-English texts. Of course, the automatic translation is imperfect, but usually you can find some sense in it. I use it on daily basis. Btw, you can find a list of articles related to the poll at the official website of the project (Czech Television). They don't link the articles directly, but I think the information is reliable and verifiable (they always mention the original source). I remember the poll, it was widely discussed in the Czech media. The Czechs showed a good sense of humor; they voted for a non-existent crazy "genius" Jára Cimrman, who is a real legend in my country. Unfortunately, the sophisticated and refined humor of this character is hardly translatable to any language. It is too firmly connected with the Czech language. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vej -- my pleasure. I am, as you might have guessed, thinking back to the quote of Lord Acton. Which, as luck would have it, is doubly appropriate to consider here, as we look at lists of "the Greatest". He wrote: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Of course, this is only a tendency, and I see nothing in your history to suggest other than that you have managed to avoid it. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as for the other similar nominations. It's not copyvio, as has been shown pretty thoroughly. As for the nom's argument, we have no such policy. If the list is cited elsewhere, it's notable under our ordinary guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [3].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the majority of the editors who have commented on this page that sufficient notability has been evidenced. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiuksham[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete—g11: note link at bottom of page advertising a conference. i doubt that they coincidentally decided to enlighten the world with a stubby article on the sanskrit word for sun 17 days before their conference named that.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The English Wikipedia is not a Sanskrit dictionary. Mangoe (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with alf about the advertising, which I've removed from the article. What little remains of it should be deleted per WP:DICDEF. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suuret suomalaiset[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In short: Not a mere list. Is notable. Not a copyvio. But agree on shortening.

a) Contrary to what the deletion nomination claims, this is not simply a reproduction of a list. The article does give context as to when and by whom the poll was organized, among others.

b) By a quick reading of the deletion discussion quoted in the nomination, it seems that the Israeli poll was organized by a commercial newspaper and received low publicity rendering the poll not notable, the stated reason for its deletion. In contrast, the Finnish poll was organized by the state-funded broadcaster YLE, akin to BBC, and the poll was widely publicized, receiving considerable attention from multiple independent sources (citations upon request).

c) I do not believe that this article is a copyvio, and such claims without legal reasoning have no basis whatsoever, as noted very well in the linked deletion discussion, where the closing admin specifically states that the reason for deletion was not a copyright violation, but lack of headword notability. As a side note: although facts by themselves are never copyrightable, one could theoretically conceive someone claiming that this list has legal protection under database right, which actually is a form of copyright under the Finnish law.^[4] However, I do not believe that an ordered list of 100 names representing a result of a public poll with limited commercial exploitability invokes protection under these statues.

d) Irrespective of above, I do agree that Wikipedia is not a directory, and would support redacting the entries 11 to 100 from the article altogether, leaving only the "Top ten" and "Humoristic voting" section of selected, surprising results in the article. This is in line of the precedent of 100 Greatest Britons, that this format was based upon, and which has weathered an AfD. --hydrox (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of redacting entries 11-100 from the list per WP:NOTDIR. --hydrox (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of ~~PRODs and~~ 2 dozen AfDs today by the same nom, of ~~many~~ most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. But how so? --hydrox (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This poll was itself organized by a reliable source, the Finnish national broadcaster YLE.^{2004 home page} I think back in 2004 this received quite significant coverage in many a Finnish media, but it is a bit hard to prove because most newspapers don't publish free online archives of such old stories (2004). Nevertheless, below are some more recent examples of sources independent of the subject engaging in secondary reporting:

[5] (in English) Helsingin Sanomat, 2009, mentions the placing of Lalli
[6] (in Finnish) Helsingin Sanomat, 2008, "In 2004, Ahtisaari was not among the Great Finns."
[7] (in Finnish) Ilta-Sanomat, 2005, again mentions the placing of Lalli.
[8] (in Finnish) Aamulehti, 2011, tribute to Arto Javanainen. Mentions his placing on the list.

I hope these citations are enough to settle the question of notability for good. --hydrox (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-Finnish speaker, I can really only evaluate the first of these, and that contains less than one sentence on the topic at hand. For an English-language topic I would reject that as evidence of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... I'm unclear. Are you rejecting only the English-language ref? Or all the Finnish language refs? As to foreign language refs, I believe that the norm at AfDs is either to run them through googletranslate (or the like) if you wish to understand their coverage, or AGF. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you do lack the competences to decide on this matter (like firing up a translator or mastering a language), but I won't stand up to someone presenting arbitary arguments. Deletionism is an immerse failure where it boils down to Anglophone chauvinism. --hydrox (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be rather sad if English Wikipedia could not, at all, write about subjects lacking good sources in English. Other encyclopedias, after all, usually rely on people who know Finnish to write about Finland, Chinese to write about Chinese literature et cetera. That's why it's fortunate that we, as well, have writers who can read more than one language. Of course, an English source is preferable when one of, as WP:IRS says, "equal quality and relevance [is] available", but seeing how that is not the case her, we can hardly discard the Finnish sources. /Julle (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets notability criteria for TV programmes. Deb (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as with the other similar nominations. It's not copyvio, as has been shown pretty thoroughly. As for the nom's argument, we have no such policy. If the list is cited elsewhere, and this one clearly is it's notable under our ordinary guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [9].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the majority of the editors who have commented on this page that sufficient notability has been evidenced. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Os Grandes Portugueses[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously keep, by the motives mentioned above regarding simillar lists --Explendido Rocha (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a nationally-networked television programme, it meets the notability criteria. Deb (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of ~~PRODs and~~ 2 dozen AfDs today by the same nom, of ~~many~~ most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response And are there significant third-party sources to establish notability? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin -- unless you have support for the copyvio claim, in light of the above and the comments at your various AfDs I would suggest you cross-out that incorrect assertion, as I assume you do not want to mislead laymen editors who may not know better. Similarly, unless you have a guidance that supports your claim that is the second half of your rationale, I would suggest you delete that as well, for the same reasons -- it reads as though you are stating policy, while in fact there is no guideline cited that supports it.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And ... why the second sentence applies?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response There were several persons who agreed and several who disagreed at the prior AfD--that's why I linked it. I'm no expert on copyright violations, but it seems like it could be to me, so I'm just throwing it out there as a concern. Regarding the second half of my rationale, that's exactly what the notability guideline is and exactly the rationale for deleting the other list. I don't see how that's misleading. Again, anyone can (and should!) read that AfD if he wants to be informed about what I'm trying to say here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clear from the only case cited, as well as the fact that the Academy Award polls and Gallup Polls are frequently cited, that there is no copyvio, as well as from the Supreme Court case cited and quoted. Even to a layman. Same with the prior AfDs pointed to. The sysop's close showed what a layman can do if he truly can't understand that similar polls exist as in the Academy Awards, and the results are reflected broadly by media, and if he can't read the Supreme Court case, or apprehend its effect -- he didn't use copyvio as an asserted reason for deletion ... you did the opposite, and raised it as a possible problem, which can confuse the unknowing, while it is nothing of the sort and was not used as such in any of the indicated closes. As to your second sentence, can you quote the guideline that says exactly what you said -- and explain why you use that language to describe lists that do not in fact "simply reproduce lists published elsewhere", but that do precisely the opposite .... do more than simply reproduce the lists, but actually contain further text? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as with the other similar nominations. It's not copyvio, as has been shown pretty thoroughly. As for the nom's argument, we have no such policy. If the list is cited elsewhere, and this one clearly is it's notable under our ordinary guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Had a impact lasting much longer (i.e. still lasts) than most TV shows. Maybe there is no scholar references, but if you search for new in the last month, you'll find references to it only months or days old. note: I am Portuguese - Nabla (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [10].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the consensus of the editors, a majority of whom have !voted keep. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Croatian[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator seems to be on a pointy spree which reeks of systemic bias. For the record the list came as a result of a poll conducted by Nacional, one of the two most widely read news weeklies in Croatia and something of a local equivalent of Time magazine. Surely this alone should confer some degree of notability. Timbouctou (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As was explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio. None at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) was already set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) the failed AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of two dozen AfDs by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The deletion rationale is rather unfortunately worded. Saying that "list articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable" seems to imply that the only way for a list to be notable is to have content that was not published anywhere, and surely this is not what was meant. E.g. I've worked on the List of members of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and there are two interesting things about it in this context: 1) in its entirety, you can't find it anywhere else but here, however that has nothing to do with it being notable or not, 2) even if the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts published this exact list and nobody else did, I contend that it would still have been notable. So, the only avenue of attack against this list is its possibly dubious copyright status. GregorB (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as with the other similar nominations. It's not copyvio, as has been shown pretty thoroughly. As for the nom's argument, we have no such policy. If the list is cited elsewhere, and this one clearly is it's notable under our ordinary guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the AfD to which the nom points, the closer objected to nom's use of his close of that AfD as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [11].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the majority of the editors who have commented on this page that sufficient notability has been evidenced. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De Grootste Nederlander[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't support deletion of a poll linked to a TV programme that obviously aroused a lot of national interest. I am sure additional sources can be added to validate this. Deb (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of 2 dozen concurrent AfDs by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as with the other similar nominations. It's not copyvio, as has been shown pretty thoroughly. As for the nom's argument, we have no such policy. If the list is cited elsewhere, and this one clearly is it's notable under our ordinary guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [12].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the consensus of the editors, a majority of whom have !voted keep. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. Ideally this article would be sourced, but that is not a pressing reason to delete in the absence of consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Os Piores Portugueses[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as with the other similar nominations. It's not copyvio, as has been shown pretty thoroughly. As for the nom's argument, we have no such policy. If the list is cited elsewhere, and this one clearly is it's notable under our ordinary guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response "If the list is cited elsewhere, and this one clearly is it's notable under our ordinary guidelines."... How is it clearly notable and cited elsewhere, when this article is unreferenced? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of 2 dozen AfDs on the same day by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. This 'worst Portuguese' vote was mostly a joke - they nominated an horse!? - by a political satire TV show, riding the wave of competitor channel's huge success, a show about 'great Portuguese' (Os Grandes Portugueses) - Nabla (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent--precisely what nom has done here as well. The closer wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [13].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which aren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. Every one of the parallel AfDs that has closed, in which precisely the same arguments were made by nom, has been closed as a "keep". The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Epeefleche makes a convincing case, the only think making this "weak" is that it's unreferenced. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 13 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 deletion (CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihanna's sixth album Technically incubated rather than deleted, but the AfD decided this should not exist as an article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk That Talk[edit]

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

I created the article about two weeks ago, and it was nominated for Afd. Consensus was that the article be incubated, which is currently is. (About 25 editors were involved and took place over the course of about 7-10 days). This article lacks in content, and shouldn't exist. If the one I created is being incubated, then this one should be without doubt deleted. Plus, it isn't good faith to undermine the valued opinion of those 25 editors involved with the AfD and effectively would waste all of our time spent on the AfD. If this article is favoured over the better version currently in the incubator, then that shows a lack of morals and standards over what should be done. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihanna's sixth album to see the full extent of the AfD discussion, which resulted in Incubate. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Glossary of association football terms. causa sui (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Against the run of play[edit]

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

Self-explanatory phrase, accompanied by little more than a dictionary definition. At best this belongs in Glossary of association football terms, but personally I do not even believe it merits inclusion there. —WFC— 18:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear delete, not sure about the glossary. It is related to football however, is not an actual football term per se. To list every colloqualism used by commentators in there would be silly. Adam4267 (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Glossary of association football terms, but that's all this phrase deserves. Giant Snowman 19:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very unlikely to progress beyond just being a dictionary definition. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Used in other sports too, but not worthy of a page (even less so than Rugby's "coming inside"). Heywoodg ^talk 22:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not self-explanatory (well, of course it is to native speakers but to others) but it still doesn't belong here. Maybe could be included in an article about negative phrases or phrases connected to sport.--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 23:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of association football terms. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep stripping[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability or verifiability guidelines; only two external links provided, both to health message boards. Google search provided no reliable sources. Miniapolis (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources I could find were about prisoners being stripped by their guardians while sleeping, and that's simply not what this stub is about. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there were more external hyperlinks provided in the first revision of the article. But they all pointed to writings whose authors are unidentifiable and thus whose subject expertise and reputations for fact checking and accuracy cannot be determined. Uncle G (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this isn't a joke, it is still unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a joke. What it is is a completely wrongheaded and foolish way to write an article: Start from people with pseudonyms asking questions — They don't even know the facts of the disorder. — on WWW discussion fora, make up a name from whole cloth, and build an article from that. Encyclopaedists should build articles from reliable sources that know the subject. Such sources would (and indeed do, in the literature) talk about parasomnia. (There are a few articles here and there that report this activity as one symptom of a parasomnia.) An encyclopaedia should impart knowledge to those who don't know, not amplify the ignorance. Uncle G (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A3 - nothing more than a definition. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's enough content to avoid an A3 speedy. Barely. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. G4 applies as well. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youn Wha Ryu martial arts[edit]

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

I came across this article while it was tagged for speedy G4, however I can't locate the previous AfD. But I can see the rationale for the deletion of such an article: no notability, and Google doesn't point to anything other than blogs, forums, and primary sources. Delete, speedy if someone can point to a previous AfD. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youn Wha Ryu. TimBentley (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the previous discussion, but I didn't see the original article to know if they're the same. However, I do know that the current article has no independent sources and makes no real claims of notability. My own search found no reliable sources that support notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per criterion G4. Nothing appears to have changed since the last AfD. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conscience Films[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Only references are to the film festival's own page. Cannot find any external coverage. Dac04 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There wasn't much at all for "Conscience Films", however there is a lot more coverage for Vicdan Filmleri, but in Turkish. Without knowing Turkish it is difficult to know much depth of coverage there is, but it might be worth someone with some Turkish language skills taking a look.Heywoodg ^talk 21:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can ask...

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=filmmakers-to-turn-camera-on-conscience-2011-08-15 I think it should be possible to find other sources also. Ali55te (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/76636/ this is another. Ali55te (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added more references. I did not have time to add external coverage when I created the page but now we have plenty of sources I think. Ali55te (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw The addition of sources has established notability. Not knowing Turkish and thinking that "Conscience Films" and "Films about Conscience" were not the same made it difficult to find sources Dac04 (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The project has two names "films about Conscience" and "Conscience Films". I will try to figure out which name is used more common, then we might rename the article. Ali55te (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis#Andalusia. Consensus to delete. However, there is content regarding him in Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis#Andalusia so I will redirect to there. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Wickboldt[edit]

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

Article on "an amateur Atlantis researcher" who clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC and appears to fail the general notability guideline as well. The cited references do not constitute significant treatment in reliable, independent sources, and I'm not seeing such treatment in Google searches. The Google Scholar hits, for instance, are one paper with two citations, several passing mentions, several results for people with similar names, and one WP mirror. Deor (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominee. Such articles need to sell themselves more if they are to avoid being deleted.--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 23:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic's notability appears to pass WP:BASIC, per these reliable sources: [14], [15], and also, to a lesser extent, [16], [17]. Per WP:BASIC, several independent sources can be combined to demonstrate notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three of these sources appear to be just Richard Freund trying to use Wickboldt to bolster his (Freund's) fringe claim. I'm not convinced that they are independent and not from the same press release or press conference. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fox News Latino and BBC News are definitely independent, and reliable. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why are you so sure they are independent of Freund's press efforts? I think they are based on the same material. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly had examined those "sources" before nominating the article for deletion, and I judged that they didn't constitute significant coverage of the person, as called for in the GNG. You seem to have ignored the "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" part of the WP:BASIC guideline you cite. Deor (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not independent coverage of the person, being mentioned in passing in a reliable source is typical WP:ROUTINE coverage, which doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Secret ^account 05:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not noteworthy person - a simple line in a parent article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is the topic "not notable?" The availability of reliable sources appears to demonstrate notability. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 00:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in the delete side as well, but Stuartyeates your drive by one minute per AFD delete votes don't help the situation, the AFD administrators are starting to discount your "votes". Secret ^account 05:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to Location hypotheses of Atlantis where this material is adequately covered, per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have the required minimum, could be expanded. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news coverage of the site mentions he was the first to come up with the idea that it was Atlantis. Lot of books mention him as well. He is notable because his research and accomplishment is cited by others, and given coverage in the news even. Dream Focus 21:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might favor us with the titles of the "lot of books" that mention him, because I'm not seeing them. In the Google Books search one gets by clicking on the appropriate "find sources" link above the nomination, I see one passing mention, three WP mirrors, and ten hits that are obviously about other people. Deor (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was looking at the sources closely and they are all passing mentions about an "alleged" location of Atlantis in Southern Spain, which is of course a human interest story, we don't keep those kinds of articles per WP:BLP1E. And Dream Focus should look at the sources closely before voting on an AFD, I checked Google books and none of them mention him and he's clearly not the first scientist to hypothesize where Atlantis is. I'm not a strong of a deletionist as I used to be (I'm more of a merge/redirect type), but seeing AFDs recently this inclusionism is getting a bit out of hand. Secret ^account 04:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per my earlier comment and those of others who agree that the sources don't meet our requirements. If needs be, leave his name as a redirect to the Location article. Freund is fringe and simply using Wickboldt to bolster his own argument. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ERPNext[edit]

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

no indication of WP:Notability. References given are small mentions and not significant coverage. Google does not provide anything better. Created by editor with acknowledged WP:COI. noq (talk) 14:43, 4 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 Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising: ...designed to be easy to use and ideal for small businesses. It has a core innovation. More back office software advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see all lists at List of ERP software packages. I want wikipedia to be sane but also fair. If this is advertising then all others are. I recommend restructuring the List of ERP software packages pages so that not all are forced to make pages. List should be allowed.Rushabhmehta1 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — Rushabhmehta1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. I have no doubt you're right about that. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please mark all of these for deletion. Guess I will restructure the page list page too. BlueErp, Adaxa Suite, Fedena, FrontAccounting, GNU Enterprise, HeliumV, LedgerSMB, OpenPro, SQL-Ledger, Tryton, WebERP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushabhmehta1 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — Rushabhmehta1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP. Deleting this article will not only be unfair but will deny a whole lot of people from discovering another reliable, flexible and effective way of being on top of their business operations. Wikipedia is known for access to information, allowing people to acquire or share knowledge and deleting the ERPNext article would go against this. Please keep the article; people need to be aware of this toolBukidalley (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — Bukidalley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment How does it meet the WP:notability guidelines? WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep the article. Wikipedia is not for promoting products such as this. noq (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This doesnt come under Advertising.This is an opensource software. In that case you'l have to go and delete all pages from brands like cococ cola and pepsi and adidas and the likes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.238.77 (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC) — 111.119.238.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Coca Cola easily passes the WP:notability tests as it has been written about extensively for many years. As I have asked before, how does this particular opensource project meet the notability guidelines. Unless that can be shown then the article should be deleted. noq (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With ref to WP:notability It says if there is a verifiable third party coverage on the topic it can be retained, please go through these links 1:http://www.pluggd.in/open-source-erp-software-erpnext-297/ 2: http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/09/four-short-links-21-september-2.html .Pluggd.in has around 5 million page views per month acc to wiki. The second link is from Oreilly radar which has mentioned erpnext as a good open-source choice for an erp. I hope that is sufficent enough to satisfy the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.18.92 (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — 120.63.18.92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: Fails the GNG, fails WP:WEB, lack of reliable independent sources and admitted COI issues. Given that the only Keep proponents are SPAs who've proffered no arguments beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL, why is this still an open AfD? Ravenswing 11:44, 12 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. causa sui (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy A. Lucas[edit]

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

This article is about a person with a weak claim to notability and no coverage of significance in reliable sources. The biggest claim appears to be giving the VP nomination address at the Democratic National Convention. Whpq (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Puff piece, likely WP:COI-created. Nothing this person has done meets the WP:GNG, the first google hit really for her speech is to her facebook page. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Tarc. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. --Bluejay Young (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without a definite idea of how this person meets the guidelines for notability and some reliable sources to back that idea up, the article is unfixable. If you have either, I would encourage you to supply them. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Tarc. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have cleaned up the article and added references. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Passing blurbs that assert precisely zilch for notability, nothing more. This is the kind of wiki-bio that needs to be actively discouraged. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc's two entries, and per the distressing, overwhelming glut of non-notable and tedious biographies like this one that clog Wikipedia and require countless untold editorial hours to sift through and discuss. --Seduisant (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Of the sources proffered, the Dover Post is a local weekly, the "ABCLocal" cite is in fact a website-only piece from the local television station, and the other sources mention the subject only in passing. No evidence the subject passes WP:BIO. Ravenswing 11:50, 12 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie Patrick Seguin[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Concern = Non notable art gallery. Only primary/self published sources. No reliable references to assert importance. WP:Advert. Wikipedia is not a trade directory: WP:NOTDIR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 13:43, October 4, 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the gallery returns significant search engine hits. Some examples of sources demonstrating coverage in online sources include [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. It is a specialist art gallery but in its field it is notable. Polyamorph (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Take a moment to click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. [24] The New York Times talks to the couple, describes their work, and mentions their studio. Dream Focus 23:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Short but accurate, could be expanded into a full and proper artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Quest of the Sparrows[edit]

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

Not notable. The only sources are the authors' web pages, the publisher's web site, and blogs. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BK. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niggerhead (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is a WP:CFORK of Niggerhead, as it contains content that has been deleted from that page by another editor (and understandably so, as it is unsourced). Creating content forks is not the proper way to deal with content disagreements. Sandstein 11:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn following conversion into a proper disambiguation page. I agree also with what some have said below that in view of this it is probably not necessary to retain niggerhead as a separate article, but that it can be integrated into Nigger#Derivations. Sandstein 16:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What disagreement? It's just that you replaced a page for another. Both can stay, they serve different purposes after all.--Deeweee (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and find sources. I'd actually propose deleting the main article instead; it's too close to a dictionary definition: "...a former name for several things thought to resemble a black person ("nigger")'s head." Having this as a disambig page makes much more sense. Yunshui (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page is necessary to put a historically archaic English reference into modern day, current perspective. I see no reason to censor history, and if we fear history we are doomed to repeat it. 98.154.21.247 (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The debate isn't about censoring history, or the possibly offensive nature of the term (see WP:NOTCENSORED). This discussion is over the relative merits of a disambiguation page. The original article Niggerhead is not up for deletion (although, per my comment above, I think it should be). Hope that makes things a little clearer. Yunshui (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge, and clean up. I'm not sure the discussion above has focused on the appropriate content of a disambiguation page. The purpose of such a page is to direct readers when there is more than one Wikipedia article that might reasonably use the same title. Here, there clearly is a need for a disambiguation page, since a reader who types "Niggerhead" in the search bar might be looking for an article about the Australian island, or the termite, or the cactus, or... you get the picture. However, there also are a bunch of items on the list that do not direct readers to any Wikipedia article, and these should be removed. The article that has usurped the title Niggerhead is unsourced for all practical purposes, bordering on a dictionary definition, and obviously afflicted by WP:RECENTISM. Unless there are reliable sources that can be cited for the historical origins and usage of this word as a place name, there is no basis for an article on that topic. Therefore, this disambiguation page should be kept, moved back to its old title, and cleaned up per WP:MOSDAB. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as modified. I've changed this unsourced essay-slash-dictionary definition into a legitimate dab page. It should stay that way. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The remaining article Niggerhead SHOULD be brought to AfD and deleted, by the way. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by RHaworth (talk · contribs) as G3, blatant hoax. (non-admin closure) Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 14:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Ludo Open[edit]

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

Subject of the article lacks coverage in reliable sources and is maybe a hoax too. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Speedy Delete as Blatant Hoax; tagged as such. Ravendrop 12:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beef Jerky[edit]

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

Non-notable album-track/B-side, coverable on its album page Uniplex (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSONG. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jerky (like Beef jerky does). --Lambiam 06:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSONG.Airproofing (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for music. There is no need for a redirect because there is aleady a redirect from Beef jerky to Jerky. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete CSD#a7. If the removal of cut and paste information leaves nothing that claims notability then this is the inevitable result. Separately, I looked for information about this person and found a number of articles about sexual misconduct which leads me to believe we are certainly better off without this article as a BLP. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Hendler[edit]

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

large cut and copy of what looks like a previousely deleted article or one from another project - can't be allowed to stay in this condition with no idea where it has been written and be who - Imo it should be speedily deleted but I might as well go straight to the AFD thus avoiding the removal of prods and so on. update - I stubbed it. - Off2riorob (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I agree with speedy.Jarhed (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Subsequent discussion seems to have polarized opinion about the reliability of the added sources, and the polarization is clearly negative. causa sui (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobson Flare[edit]

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 27. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as before, more an attempt to propagate and promote than report. Worthless not notable trivia the sort the en wiki is bloated and demeaned by. Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't here to impress elitist. Dream Focus 10:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For reasons already mentioned in the deletion review. Can we just reopen the old AFD, and copy over what everyone said from the deletion review to avoid having everyone have to repeat themselves? The sources found clearly establish its notability. Dream Focus 10:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Landing: The much touted ref that shows notability is back on the internet, after being unavailable for a while. As I said in the last AfD, this ref itself says Jacobson "stresses that he is not promoting any radical departure from current practice" and "Users affirm that it is in no way a radical departure from current practice - it defines what they are already doing, making it more precise." The Flight International article provides enough detail to clearly state that the "Jacobson Flare" is just a refinement of normal airplane landing techniques and this confirms that it should not have its own article, as, with the how to text excluded, would only be a sentence or two, would be insufficient for a stand-alone article and thus should be merged into the Landing article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, within the scope of which this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' still not really notable for a stand-alone article but could be mentioned as a one liner in Landing. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as independent article (retain content within "landing" or similar). Articles need to meet GNG which requires significant coverage, so far it is an article in Flight International and a mention in an abstract (which by definition is brief). What is described is a method a calculating the flare point (as opposed to pilot instinct earned through practice) and as such it belongs with landing rather than as a subarticle of landing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with Ahunt and GraemeLeggett. This article has whiff of promotion about it, says nothing useful that isn't already in Landing, and says it badly. Surplus to requirements. Reyk _YO! 02:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Still unreferenced (no inline citations), non-notable, deserves only a passing mention in the landing article and it would have to be cited if it was added there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, but here's my take on it anyway. Currently we have one reliable source: the article in Flight International. Other sources have been discussed but have eventually been dismissed. In the last AfD and the subsequent overturn discussion, the abstract on ARIC was dismissed as it was never actually published, and the article in Flight Safetywas found to be a passing mention only. There appear to be no other independent sources (and god only knows I've looked!). Although Ahunt points out that the Flight International article appears to describe Jacobson Flare as a refinement of current technique only, it was still significant enough for them to devote an entire article to its intricacies. This debate comes down to one issue, really: is a single reliable source providing significant coverage sufficient to warrant keeping the article? Yunshui (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources that cover this sort of thing are available for easy online searching? Do you sincerely doubt that it is covered elsewhere as well? PLEASE read the Wikipedia Policy at WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Dream Focus 15:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to us if the sourcing is online or the written page. I suspect we would be having a similar discussion if the only source quoted for the article was the Heavy aircraft pilot's guide to flying: Volume 2. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The talk page was deleted on May 29, but the prod was not removed until September, or so it would appear. Is there some reason we can't view the Discussion page and its history? Unscintillating (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD was actually successful; the article was undeleted in September. The deleted talk page edits pre-PROD basically are "delete this piece of FOD" and "Yup, PRODded". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ There is nothing objectionable with this material, except that it would be helpful if it were in the a context that explains "flare". Since there is no apparent need for a stand-alone article, it is not even necessary to consider the notability of this topic, which seems to have been too much the topic of this discussion. The vast majority of !votes approve of having at least some of the material appear in another article. The lone delete !vote that does not so approve asserts that the material is "worthless", but there is evidence of at least one strong reliable independent source, and the existence of non-independent reliable sourcing is implied. There is also reason to believe that this process is being used by the pilots of passenger airplanes, which means a lot of governmental regulators, and politicians that fly on airplanes, are potentially involved. So the idea that all of this material is "worthless" should stand refuted. WP:ATD policy considerations call for a consideration of merge before considering the deletion of material. That leaves only one keep !vote and one refuted delete !vote opposed to merge. Unscintillating (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Redirect to Landing flare with merger as an exercise for the reader. Unscintillating (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the DRV, the correct outcome is for us to create an article called landing flare and redirect this title there. No objection to a redirect to landing in the meantime.—S Marshall T/C 13:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer a red link, and I have changed my !vote above to be "Redirect to Landing flare. Unscintillating (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been flying for 20 years and I've never even heard of this. More than an hour of reading through reputable documentation hasn't given me a single mention of it anywhere. This deserves a mention in landing... maybe, but definitely not it's own article. Trusilver 16:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pago (Company)[edit]

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

Non-notable smartphone app; has been CSD'd but recreated afresh (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, I only CSD'd it on 29th September, got deleted, got recreated again. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shintaro Matsukura[edit]

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

fails WP:ATHLETE. unremarkable career for a 19 year old, mostly competing in under 18 events and qualifying events not top level amateur events. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Success as a junior kickboxer does not show notability. No noteworthy achievements as an adult. Astudent0 (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has competed for K-1 and World Victory Road as a senior kickboxer, has defeated guys such as Yuya Yamamoto. Was selected to compete in the K-1 Japan GP this year. WölffReik (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just came across this AFD and haven't done all my research yet. However, I thought Victory Road was an MMA organization so I'm not sure how significant doing a kickboxing bout for them is. The K-1 site said the Japan GP in Osaka featured "seven local stars" so, again, I'm not sure how significant his appearance was. He lost both of the aforementioned bouts. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't see notability--merely being a professional kickboxer isn't enough. He has no international fights, either by opponent or location, and he hasn't fought for any major titles. He's only 19 so he may well become notable, but I don't think he's there yet. Papaursa (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What if he gains a major achievement in two years time? We keep 16 year-old debutants in many sports! Why should we dispose this lad? Give him some time. Best, Umi1903 (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we don't keep because it will be notable in future as per WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it is not, for sure. But, under your critisim, we had to delete all present time starts like Schit, Bonjasky, Le Banner, Cikatic and others, if they were rising today, prior to their major achievements. Assuming that we delete this one and the lad grasps a big occasion; then, you're going to put all efforts to recreate the article? We lose all today's data, info and make double effort to gather them together, again? As I mentioned above, there are thousands of debutants, hot prospects, future stars in many sports, so we are going to delete them, too? You Libstar, you keep misjudging the essentials of martial arts, mate. Umi1903 (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sports stars are kept if they meet WP:BIO or WP:ATH this one clearly does not. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly"? This is totally a subjective criticism of yours, buddy. That's why your claims are personal and unmeritorious. Who are you? Vassilios Skouris or Judge Dredd? To debut in K-1 is a true example of being a notable athlete since K-1 is accepted as the top-notch martial arts competition around the World. We are not talking about a teenager footballer at nPower League 3, we mention a decent performer at a World class competition. Umi1903 (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's done nothing to show notability as an adult fighter yet. Anything else is WP:CRYSTAL. Remember there are always lots of rising stars that never really become stars. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is one of the most promising kickboxers in Japan (which is a very significant country in the sport), has beaten a top-class fighter in Yuya Yamamoto, and has competed in the Japan MAX Tournament (a significant event held annually). - Minowafan (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not yet notable. "one of the most promising ..." is a synonym for Not Yet Notable. We should be very reluctant to accept student or junior awards for anything, except national champions, and based on the bio here, he's far from it. On its own merits, no demonstrated notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence the subject passes the GNG, fails WP:ATHLETE. His alleged "promise" - for which his partisans in this AfD fail to provide any reliable sources saying so - notwithstanding, the subject has no proven accomplishments at the top level. We do indeed have articles on teenage athletes ... the ones who've competed in national or world championships, who've competed at top professional levels or who otherwise pass the GNG. The subject hasn't done any of these things. Ravenswing 11:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Fighting Network Latvia 2007[edit]

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

also nominating:

qualifying events for other events. all fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. no significant coverage to establish WP:PERSISTENCE. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all More routine coverage of fight cards without significant bouts or coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Sometimes, I can not understand this "significancy" and "notability" issues. All competitive events in martial arts are notable, for sure. We are talking about martial arts, in pro level. A system could differ from a sport to another. In martial arts, there are several sanctioning bodies - also in boxing for your consideration. WBA, WBC, WBO, IBF are the most notable and major ones amongst the others, where there are also other bodies i.e. WBU, IBO, EBU, PABA. Therefore, since almost all (above zero level) events are sanctioned by one of those bodies, having economical content and profit purpose; no matter which sport it is, the event is a notable one. If you'd like to delete such articles, let's also discuss the presence of the K-1 Grand Prix, or K-1 itself, along with UFC, or even boxing bodies since they all are somewhat an enterprise, with all boxing events, too! In the US, since the market is bigger and on a higher level, there are more media organs and channels, so it's easier to find decent references, I agree with this fact. However, European or Asian based events should not be avoided solely based on this reason of coverage. Anyone could establisbh a website for event/athlete records or news articles, so we'd be able to let articles survive just cause of that, if there was a website being run for pertinent notions? We should not wipe related articles. Please let them stay with us. Wikipedia is where all history breathe, also in sports. As a loyal and faithful wikipedia contributor, I'll try to find relevant references to strenghten up the content of the pertient articles. Best Regards, Umi1903 (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that "all competitive events in martial arts are notable" is definitely not true, no more than every professional baseball game is notable. If you look at the notability criteria for professional boxers, for example, they must have fought for a world title. If winning an event doesn't make you notable, how do you claim that event is notable? From WP:EVENT:"A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting." Certainly not every fight card is of historical significance. Papaursa (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I see nothing that makes these articles anything but routine sports coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 18:11, 3 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -run-of-the-mill events of no lasting notability.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jago Pakistan Jago[edit]

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

Google search only seems to find sites where you can watch the show - nothing to indicate notability. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news archive is not complete, it entered in by hand, and Google announcing it was going to stop adding things not that long ago. They didn't include Pakistan sources it seems. Google gives "About 660,000 results". This show has lasted 7 seasons so far, with episodes lasting 120 minutes. Surely there is coverage out there somewhere. If anyone speaks that language, they can help search, otherwise we'll just have to use common sense and assume with that many Google hits talking about it and it lasting that many seasons, it must be a notable show. Dream Focus 01:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. I note that there are no interwiki links that I'd expect for a genuinely notable foreign language show (which would be useful for stealing sources from). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable assertion of notability in the article, or presented, or found in my search results. Off2riorob (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Google is not a measurement for notability but on the other hand, the article makes no claim to any notability either. This stub as it is now seems more like WP:INDISCRIMINATE info. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: DreamFocus' argument is entirely unpersuasive. As he knows full well, WP:V holds that it is not enough to assert that reliable sources must exist out there, somewhere, maybe, possibly. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Period. We cannot claim that this is a notable show, its length or language of origin notwithstanding, without the same.
That being said, I note that a search for the title on the Urdu Wikipedia [25] turns up nothing. Ravenswing 12:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt it exist, it listed on the television station's website. [26] So the Wikipedia policy of WP:VERIFIABILITY has been met. And the part about "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." relates to the content of the article itself, and there is no information in the article which you can't confirm by searching the official website of the television station they work for. We're discussing notability, not verifiability here. Dream Focus 12:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And once you produce sources attesting to its notability, we can review them. You don't seem to have managed that. That being said, you know that a reliable source must be independent. The television station which produces or broadcasts the show, of course, is not. Honestly, none of us just fell off the turnip truck, here. Ravenswing 13:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BEinGRID[edit]

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

Article de-PRODed by anonymous IP. PROD reason still stands: "They had a project, they produced a website, they created a blog, they presented at a meeting where some very notable persons were present. No indication of real notability, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG." So we're at AfD now and hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as undue weight for a project that did not last four years. Normally a merge would be another alternative, although I cannot think of where to merge off-hand. I would note that the conference mentioned was evidently a sidelight to the Open Grid Forum meeting. At most seems worth a passing mention in another article or two, which would not be a "merge" of any material except to say it was funded. Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development already mentions it since it claimed to be the "largest project funded by the Information Society Technologies". W Nowicki (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I can also add a mention the the European Grid Infrastructure article. That one mostly focuses on the support for science research, but this was another project that used the related "Grid" term that was trendy during this time too. It seems most of the links to this article come from the {{BT Group}} template, although it is not clear how major their participation was. Seems like undue weight for a small paroject at such a large company. W Nowicki (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent 3rd party verification of durable notability can be found. Aside from showcasing at a conference, the main outcome talked up on the page was "Gridipedia", an originally named site which now seems to just point to IT-tude.com, which has the appearance of a far more commercial consultancy piece. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De Grootste Belg[edit]

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

Non-notable. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, rather ridiculous nomination. TV show (with radio and newspaper support) that got loads of attention before, during and after. I was rewriting the article after removing the Prod, but got an edit conflict while saving due to this AfD... I have added sources from Belgium, but also articles from Trouw and NOS, two reliable Dutch sources, showing that the poll received considerable interest in other countries as well. Please withdraw and do some research the next time. Fram (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response It's hardly ridiculous--all the sources you added are in Dutch and I don't know that language. I could find Google hits, but how would I know that these are reliable sources or what they are saying? Since this is an English-language encyclopedia, English-language sources are preferred for precisely this reason. Can you find any secondary commentary in English-language sources that demonstrate notability? If not, then this should be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that sources be in English. You may find a translation service of use.-gadfium 19:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium is certainly correct, as is Fram. There is no requirement that sources be in English. Or that nom be able to read the language.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response No one said that English-language sources were required--sources are required and English-language ones are preferred; this is not controversial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are not seeking to mislead fellow editors. But please be careful -- when you leave out the highly relevant end of a sentence, as you did here, your communications may do just that. As the policy states (in full): "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." (emphasis added)." The points made by Fram and Gadfium are on point, and the policy you point to has no relevance to the substance of their comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The TV show on its own would make it notable, in my opinion. Deb (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of PRODs and AfDs today by the same nom, of many of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the claim by the nominator that "Can you find any secondary commentary in English-language sources that demonstrate notability? If not, then this should be deleted." has been shown to be incorrectly above by others (and seems to be denied by the nom a few posts later somehow), but anyway, there was an Associated Press report about the election as well, as can be seen here. This source also discusses the poll, and the differences between the Flemish and Walloon one. Fram (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response The AP link apparently says that this happened, not that this was important--I don't know that this qualifies as significant third-party coverage. If it is saying that 6 million voted in the poll, then that is certainly newsworthy, but if it says that this was a poll of some segment of a population of 6 million, then there is nothing inherently newsworthy about that: there are public polls all the time of larger and smaller populations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are not constantly polls involving a radio station, a newspaper, and 12 TV shows. AP doesn't report on any poll that is organised either. Anyway, these wete just some extra's for those people requiring English sources: the significant coverage in Dutch language sources has long ago closed this, and I have no idea why you don't just withdraw this AfD. Fram (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Because I have no idea if this has significant coverage in third-party sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. Full articles in reliable sources from a different (neighbouring) country. What more do you want? Fram (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assuming a native-language speaker can confirm that each of those refs do actually have more than a paragaph about the topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nom seems to have taken on board zero from the above AfD discussion, and the at discussions at the various other AfDs he started just now -- since he makes the same wholly unwarranted assertions about "possible" copyios at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Greeks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belg der Belgen, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Español de la Historia. Given the overwhelming rejection of his assertion at those AfDs by the community at the other various AfDs, the fact that the closer at the AfD he points to gave it zero credence in his close, and the fact that the other older AfDs identified above that have close rejected any assertion of copyvio resoundingly, it becomes increasingly difficult to do anything other than conclude that nom has rebutted the assumption of good faith he is otherwise entitled to, and is engaging in intentionally non-consensus, POINTy, misleading behavior at the series of AfDs he has just initiated.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hardly. I'm no expert on copyright and I simply didn't follow a lot of the discussion at the above-linked AfD. At some point, it became too technical and arcane for me. All I know is that there several users were still of the opinion that it was a copyvio and at The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, there have been several copyvio concerns (as I recall, that page was even deleted once and sure enough, looking at it now there is a copyvio concern.) I say all this precisely because I don't know if it's a copyvio and I provide a link to that lengthy discussion for other users to decide. I don't see how that abrogates my right to good faith. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no doctor. But if there was a discussion as to whether (for argument's sake) you had AIDS, and somebody said you did, but the conclusion was to ignore the spurious accusation, and a medical professor opined that you did not have AIDS, and tertiary evidence made it clear that you must not have AIDS -- I wouldn't go around trumpeting on a dozen pages "Koav MAY HAVE AIDS!". And then hide behind the skirts of _{"well ... I'm no expert ... readers can read what I linked to, which .. oh yes ... of course says in the close to avoid the AIDS accusation"}. If you are no expert, and want to ignore the fact that Academy Awards are polls and that All Star votes are polls and all those are faithfully produced ad nauseum, and if you can't read or understand the caselaw, and want to ignore the consensus of reaction to you on this point across the dozen AfDs you started, then at least recognize that the closer of the AfD you pointed to as your "support" ignored it. You've lost the assumption of good faith because you have ignored all of the above. And, to be frank, your above selective quote -- where you left out the last part of a sentence that turned it on its head -- did little to convince me you are entitled to the assumption.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer in the AfD nom relies on above objected to nom's use of the close of that AfD as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [27].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the majority of the editors who have commented on this page that sufficient notability has been evidenced. I also note (as a further argument, as wp:otherstuffexists allows) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls (as this one was) -- just collections that random editors chose ... this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists, which we certainly find to be sufficiently notable.

Finally, I note that the strong majority of comments on the 2 dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Smith (rugby player)[edit]

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

Has not played for Munster, is on the A-team; development roster. Fails WP:NSPORTS. Contested Prod, contester provided link to bio that only proves that he is still yet to play. Ravendrop 08:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst he has not yet earnt any full caps for Munster, Smith is still included in the squad as he is now on a development contract, which means that he will soon be on a full contract. Munster players on development contracts have always been included in the squad. Furthermore, due to the rotation of the squad that will take place throughout the season due to internationals, it is inevitable that he will earn caps soon, so to delete this article would be premature, as it would only have to be undeleted in the near future. The only reason he has not earnt any caps as of present is because he is currently recovering from a knee injury. If Munster officials have included him in their squad for 2011-12 season, then he should also be included in the squad that is on the main Munster page. There are a hanfdul of players in the squad that have earnt only a few caps, and have had as little impact as Smith, but they are included also. The article is not about how many times he's played, it's about who's in the official Munster squad.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he gets a full contract then he would meet WP:ATHLETE. At the moment he does not. noq (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RU/N --Bob247 (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy When he gets his cap he will meet the notability guidelines and can be moved back out. AIRcorn (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's long established that in order to meet WP:ATHLETE you have to play, not merely be signed to a contract. Ravenswing 12:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100 Welsh Heroes[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Oppose deletion - a major poll in its context, which received extensive publicity in the Welsh media at the time, eg. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3249020.stm Consistent with the polls held around the same time in other countries, eg. 100 Great Britons. Deb (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC) PS. I have addressed concerns relating to the lack of independent references in the article. Deb (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of ~~PRODs and~~ 2 dozen AfDs today by the same nom, of ~~many~~ most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A list isn't notable just because it has famous people, but when news stories about famous people are regularly citing their position in this list years after the event, it certainly is. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found mentions in the media, including the one Deb mentioned. →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object to my close at the "greatest Israelis" article being used as a precedent here. No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [28]. There is no other policy or guideline that i am aware of that addresses such cases, so this AFD should only be about the notability of this list. And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close. No opinion one way or the other on this issue, but again, my close at that AFD should not be taken as any sort of ruling on an entire class of articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a good thermometer of opinion at the time. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keepas for the other similar nominations. It's not copyvio, as has been shown pretty thoroughly. As for the nom's argument, we have no such policy. If the list is cited elsewhere, it's notable under our ordinary guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete & probably {{copyvio}}. While the list is of notable people, the list itself and the process is not particularly notable for its own encyclopaedic article, and the compiled list is a creation that would have its own intellectual property, and one should also consider the copyright implications. While others can reproduce it due to fair use our reproduction should not allow that under our licence conditions and its reproduction. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to the copyvio point, that simply incorrect. As per Feist and its progeny. The poll results are facts, not a creation of the pollster. People voted in the poll, not the pollster.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply--at best--inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the majority of the editors who have commented on this page that sufficient notability has been evidenced. I also note (in accord with otherstuffexists, as a further observation) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Also, I note that the strong majority of comments on the 2 dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk are expressing keen disagreement with the parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Lucas[edit]

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

Footaller who has yet to make an appearance at a level deemed to confer notability by Wikipedia standards (per WP:NFOOTBALL) has only played semi-professional club and youth internationals. Some coverage in local press but all general sports journalism type stuff and match reports etc.. ClubOranje^T 08:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ClubOranje^T 08:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 08:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for the subject to pass WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully pro league. Meaning, he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I cannot in good faith argue for a keep, it is interesting to note that this person's sourcing is better than that of literally thousands of borderline notable continental European players, which generally have nothing but Transfermarkt and/or Soccerway. It has no bearing on this person's notability, but I feel this comment is relevant to a WP:FOOTY deletion discussion. —WFC— 12:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDENext[edit]

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

New research project, great plans, but only just kicked off, so nothing to report yet. No coverage in independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should "Article is about a European Union research project" be a criterion for speedy deletion by now? I can't recall any of them that were ever really notable; and worse, all of them are written up in atrociously slanted but unintelligible bureaucratese prose. This one purports to be about something interesting (infectious diseases) but the non-neutral bollocks of the text takes great pains to conceal that all the project has on its menu so far is to plan to have more meetings: Due to environmental and economic changes, emerging diseases with zoonotic potential will be an increasing challenge for public health in Europe. The risks and the consequences triggered by vector-borne diseases for public health in Europe are just starting to emerge in the public awareness. EDENext is following a holistic, transdisciplinary public health approach towards vector-borne diseases. Sensible risk communication will be developed, based on scientific risk assessment on one hand, and taking into account public risk perception on the other.... EDENext intends to go further towards understanding the ecological and biological mechanisms that result in epidemics of such diseases. We will be placing strong emphasis on the social and economic factors that favour contamination, and controlling disease risk. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-neutral POV and bureaucrat-speech nonsense can be repaired with some forceful editing. A lack of independent sources can't. This topic has no shortage of web presence and may actually be accomplishing something genuinely interesting, but everything here is just fluff without some concrete independent verification. §everal⇒|Times 19:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the material is also copied from pages like this one with limited paraphrasing. Might be a copyright problem. §everal⇒|Times 19:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Russia (Russia TV)[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. Some dissent is mentioned, but it's not clear that these are notable or reliable sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG and WP:LSC. Media coverage in several Russian newspapers, journals, webpages, etc. I don't see any copyright issues. You can add it on WP:CP if you think it has copyvio. Also we have 100 Greatest Britons.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 18:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of ~~PRODs and~~ 2 dozen AfDs today by the same nom, of ~~many~~ most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, of course. GreyHood ^Talk 18:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just, as for the others.Not copyvio, as has been clearly explained above. Sufficient sources for notability Thee is no policy against these lists, and the assertion of the nom does not make policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a few WP:1E news stories + a whole lot of non-independent references to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even in Russia? You must be kidding!--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 09:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of top Russian politicians, scientists etc. took part in the show, it was discussed all over the Russian media, it's results pruduced scandal and are well-rememered. Meh, this deletion nomination is a joke. GreyHood ^Talk 21:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the refs in the article. I don't speak Russian and have no way of evaluating for relevance or independence of hits in a google search. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [29].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the majority of the editors who have commented on this page that sufficient notability has been evidenced. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Gen Argentino[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Such polls can be of great significance in their individual countries, and this has not been taken into account. Deb (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Okay, is this one of great national significance, or are you just saying that it could be notable? Do you have any sources to support notability, considering how that is the original complaint? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not keen on the idea of nominating all linked articles in this category as non-notable just because they are smaller polls than the "Great Britons" one or took place in a country English speakers don't know much about. Deb (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning keep on the article itself, because my guess is that the television series would be notable (although I'm currently neutral because this has yet to be demonstrated). The question of whether or not this is copyvio (and thus whether content should be removed from the article) is separate to whether or not we should have an article about the TV series. —WFC— 15:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of ~~PRODs and~~ 2 dozen AfDs today by the same nom, of ~~many~~ most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list might. I'd be surprised if the programme does. —WFC— 12:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not copyvio, and the only other argument for deletion is an imaginary policy. Whether the article shouldbe on the list or the series would need subsequent discussion. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [30].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the consensus of the editors, a majority of whom have !voted !keep. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Il più grande italiano di tutti i tempi[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since this is a nationally-networked television programme, it meets the notability guidelines. Deb (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination has no basis except the imaginary policy given, which does not exist, either as stated policy/guideline or in actual practice. : meets WP:N, not copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of 2 dozen AfDs on the same day by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly not a copyvio , as has been shown above, and equally clearly justified by notability. The supposed policy against such lists is entirely the invention of the nom. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Perfect Roommate[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No reliable sources. (PROD was contested with no reason given by an IP with no other edits.) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage from reliable sources. Nothing showed up in Google News Search, and a general Google search for reviews or interviews did not yield anything at all. It's that direct-to-video. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source I can find other than IMDB is this one and it's not exactly a reliable independent source. Notability is not established at all. §everal⇒|Times 15:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~WP:USERFY... return to author~~ per current failure of WP:TOOSOON. The article's proffered IMDB link leads to someone named "Ross Durocher", who does NOT have a searchable connection to the film.[31][32]. And while the film is searchable through a regular google search,[33] we do not have the reliable sources required. The one found non-RS source offered above gives us director "Curtis Crawford", and a search for him on IMDB leads to a storyboard artist and film producer/director,[34] who may or may not be the one connected with this film... but the film itself is not in their database. Also, the Movie Central link indicates that this one will screen on 10/11, 10/12, and 10/27, and there "might" be coverage in a few days... or not. But with no coverage for a made-and-yet-to-release film, we have a failure of WP:NFF. While it is of a concern that an article-being-actively-edited was tagged for speedy only 8 minutes after its second edit by its inexperienced, 22-lifetime-edits, newcomer author, the speedy was removed and the issue of context was addressed. So kudos to those who tried to give this new article a chance. That said, I suggest we return it to its author, place it in his sandbox, and send him to WP:PRIMER, WP:TOOSOON and WP:NF so that he might better understand why his article is not ready. All he's seen from Wikipedia so far are those "oh-so-friendly" deletion templates (I see no evidence of even a "welcome" message)[35]. Who knows... maybe with some guidence this one will become a terific contributor. Changed my mind. As editor knows enough to repeatedly blank his talk page... and did so even after I myself left a polite note AND he finally received a welcome message from User:Tbhotch.[36] To me (and I was quite willing to extend the benefit of the doubt) this means he simply does not wish to listen. Sigh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reverted an IP's removal of the AfD notice on the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From studying the author's takpage history,[37] I would think the "IP" was the author himself when not logged in. Sigh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomsbury Fightback![edit]

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

Not at all notable. The only thing in the article which remotely resembles a claim of significance is the claim that the group organised a "a spoof strike rally" which was mentioned in several newspapers and magazines. I do not think that would constitute sufficient notability to justify an article even if it were sourced, but it isn't. I have searched for this on Google, combining "Bloomsbury Fightback" with various other words and phrases referring to the "spoof rally", and found nothing at all about it. The article gives two sources. One of these is an article written by a member of Bloomsbury Fightback!, published in "Socialist Resistance". The other is published by the New York Post, but it does not mention Bloomsbury Fightback at all, and the only thing in the article which could possibly be relevant is a one sentence statement that Lady Gaga "agreed to support Zizek at a March rally in London when the lecturers' union UCU was on strike". This may or may not refer to a "spoof" rally, and if so the spoof may or may not have been created by Bloomsbury Fightback, but there is no reliable source saying so. I have searched for "Bloomsbury Fightback" both alone and in combination with other words and phrases relating to the content of the article, and I have found Wikipedia, Twitter, a few blogs, wordpress, various minor left wing publications, but nothing that could remotely be regarded as significant coverage in reliable independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per (pleasingly thorough!) nom; nothing out there suggests this meets the GNG. Yunshui (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JamesBWatson. I couldn't find anything substantial by googling either. Not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They were mentioned in this article in the Evening Standard as being involved in letting off a smoke bomb in Foyles bookshop as a protest against the New College of the Humanities. They have also had a letter published in the Guardian. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're kids, they've thrown a smoke 'bomb' and they've written a lefty letter. Notable? No. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this accurate. They were not mentioned in the Evening Standard article "as being involved in letting off a smoke bomb". They were mentioned as being involved in a protest, and separately it is stated in the same article that some unknown person let off a smoke bomb. The full and complete mention of this group in the article is "Protest organisers included members of Bloomsbury Fightback". Scarcely substantial coverage. As for writing a letter to a newspaper and getting it published, are we seriously to think that that confers notability? Even writing articles in newspapers does not confer notability, as we need sources about the subject of an article, not by the subject, so writing one letter and getting it published does not come within a hundred miles of the goal posts. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers in Law (TV series)[edit]

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

This article has yet not established the show's notability. Has its episodes survived or been wiped? "The world may never know," quoted the Tootsie Pop commercial. Also, the citations are databases and archives of a dead link; therefore, I consider their reliabilities. Previously PRODded a month ago: contested with "improvements" to keep this article. Gh87 (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but amend title. Whether or not the TV tapes survive the radio version with substantuially the same script and cast does and was re-broadcast by the BBC only this year. The cast and writers in themselves give this series notablility. The audience of the original TV broadcast was probably well over 10 million. --AJHingston (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources exist.[38][39] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:TVSERIES, which seems to indicate that if it airs on a notable network then that is all that is needed. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - didn't we go through this before when it was proposed for deletion? It features the first major TV appearance of a famous actor (Briers) and led to several other series, a radio series, etc. It was aired on BBCtv in 1962, which pretty much means that it was aired on the main UK television channel at the time, and thus would have been seen by millions. Note the cited Mark Lewisohn article (which by the way, is actually an internet version of the Radio Times Guide to Comedy by a pretty respected writer on media), which states "The TV show had some far-reaching effects." All indicate notability. Whether it needs improvement/expansion/clarification in certain areas is not an issue to raise by AFD but on an article talk page. Bob talk 18:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peregrine Fisher's sources →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I recently found out the show's status: its episodes are currently missing. No episodes are yet found. I just added one citation. --Gh87 (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After an unusually thorough and scholarly discussion, consensus is that the existence of Fatima de Madrid is not verifiable enough to allow her inclusion in Wikipedia. This does not preclude the article's recreation after new reliable sources have been found about her. Sandstein 12:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima de Madrid[edit]

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

While this person seems like a very interesting article subject, I'm afraid I just can't find sources to attest that she verifiably existed. Everything seems to be derived from this source, which I would normally consider reliable were it not for the fact that it is the only source (the book cited on the Spanish version of the page doesn't appear to contain this person, and another site I found which says she appears in Enciclopedia Espasa isn't borne out by a search on said encyclopedia). At any rate, only one reliable source wouldn't attest notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—ok, this guy: Said Al-Andalusi is said by these people to have written the Kitāb Tabaqāt al-umam, which is, according to this article on jstor (The Early Growth of the Secular Sciences in Andalusia. George F. Hourani. Studia Islamica, No. 32 (1970), pp. 143-156) to be the main source of information about her putative father, Maslama al-Majrīṭī (who is also mentioned in britannica online in the article on the culture of muslim spain; he at least shouldn't be redlinked in her article). I can't quite see how to get my hands on a copy of the Kitāb Tabaqāt al-umam right now, but i would bet good money that that's where those people with the spanish poster picked up whatever they're basing their claims on, assuming they're not completely delusional, since everyone seems to claim it's the main semicontemporary source for most good info about the father and his colleagues. also possibly useful might be the "biobibliography" of andalusi mathematicians by suter mentioned in both the google books link and the jstor article. i will try to look into this a little more, but i thought i'd throw this up here in case anyone knows more about it than i do.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh, p.s. the britannica discussion of the father doesn't actually mention that he worked on al-Khwārizmī's astronomical tables, as her article claims she and he did, although britannica does seem to claim to give a complete list of two works ascribed to him but of doubtful authorship and one more reliably attributed to him. on the other hand, the two of doubtful authorship, Ghāyat al-ḥakīm and Rutbat al-ḥakīm, may be compendia of some sort and so may have the al-Khwārizmī work in them. possibly one or the other of these books is a source. the father's evidently best known for updating the materia medica of dioscorides.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source confirms the al-Khwarizmi thing –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

excellent work! at least that can go in the article on the father.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

another p.s.—Aciram has cleverly noted that her father wasn't redlinked at all, just misspelled: Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti. this article does also mention his astronomical work, but, frustratingly, doesn't give a source either. it claims that the two works of doubtful attribution i mentioned above are about chemistry. this makes me even more sure that it's Said Al-Andalusi that's the locus classicus of all this info, since none of Maslamah's actual astronomical work seems to survive.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk)

Keep - The relevance seem established enough. She was a female astronomer in the 11th century, a Moslem female astronomer in the 11th century, a published 11th century astronomer, and a published female moslem astronomer in the 11th century. All of those factors alone are rare and would make here relevant, and now, they are even combined. The reservation seem to be the fact that the article relies on only one source. Correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia policy has no time limit when it comes to the completion of an article. The main thing is that the article has a reference. There should be more than one, but more sources will always eventually be added. There are many articles which relies on one single source.

I think that the tag should be altered. Instead of questioning the entire articles relevance because it depends on a single source, the tag should say that the article is a single source-article and needs another source. There are tags which marks an article as single-sourced: those articles are not questioned, but the tag informs everyone that the article needs additional sources, which would speed up the development ofn an article. I therefore propose that the tag of the article is changed to a more specified tag. --Aciram (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—i think that it might be wise to be sure that she actually existed, let alone verifiably did anything like the article says that she did, before we go keeping it; i think Roscelese is quite right to be suspicious here. a poster produced a thousand years after her death is not a reliable source without some kind of independent confirmation. i doubt that they just made it up, but it must have come from somewhere, and it's possible that they've misunderstood or inflated something. it's very weird that it's so hard to find even a mention of her elsewhere. however, i do agree with you that if she existed, then she would be important. i don't think nominator is suggesting otherwise.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

query—Roscelese, it occurred to me just now that she might be mentioned in the enciclopedia only under her father's name. i don't seem to have access to that source right now. maybe take a look in his article and see if she's there? if anyone did make anything up here, i'd guess it's the "de madrid" part. that sounds like modern accretion to me.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other searches still didn't turn up anything, but it might be that I just cannot search in that book (I thought it was that I could search but not view the results). Searching on her father's name + daughter (or fatima + astronoma) doesn't get anything. I think we can reasonably judge that even if she existed, the extreme difficulty in finding sources shows she is not notable enough for an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really can not understand the argument: "if she existed, the extreme difficulty in finding sources shows she is not notable enough for an article". I have stated above what I believe to be a perfectly valid argument for why she should be considered notable if she excited. Being a female scientist in the 11th century makes her notable. I do believe that argument is serious enough not to be ignored in the discussion, Roscelese. --Aciram (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mm, maybe. my feeling is that this is a meta-case of WP:BIAS, a guideline one wishes that premodern historians might have considered, given the maddeningly random coverage of ancient women scientists, and that if she's mentioned even briefly and even in an ancient but secondary source, we ought to give her the extreme benefit of the doubt regarding notability and at least have a stub. if an 11th century woman working in a scientific field is mentioned by anyone at all, she must have been notable (based on some kind of analogy with Redaction criticism). i'm kind of leaning towards incubate if nothing turns up soon, depending on if i have to go to interlibrary loan to get some of the potential sources— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be willing to keep if evidence that she was actually mentioned in books of her time. If that's the case, she's probably mentioned under the name "Fatima bint Maslama al-Majriti". "Fatima de Madrid" seems like an innovation to me. I have one book of her Father (Ghayat al-hakim), she doesn't seem to be mentioned there. Also I don't understand why the attribution of this book to Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti is doubted according to his wiki article. I'll check "Tabaqt al-Umam" Tachfin (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment—thank you so much for that transliteration of her likely name. it helped quite a bit. the article on her in the spanish wikipedia gives that same diccionario de mujeres en la historia. i think that it's not searchable at all through google books is what's happening there. i got a copy of the Sa'id book and read it (it's quite short). there's nothing in there about al-Majriti having a daughter. I also found this scary-detailed list of mujeres sabias en al-andalus. her name does not seem to be in there, but for some reason i can't make my printer print it, so i don't feel sure that i didn't miss something (the diacritics make the search not work properly). to add insult to injury, i can't seem to get the diccionario easily through ILL, but i'm not giving up on that quite yet, although i can't imagine at this point what their source is going to be.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the muslim female astronomer in 11th century in Spain is a person that is notable even if didn't exist: if so, the fact of her introduction is of more interest then her works nowdays. Taking in account that the lack of sources is fairly natural in this case, I believe that the case can be resolved by noting the doubts of her existance in article body. Czarkoff (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't work that way; that would be original research. If there were sources speculating that she did not exist, then we could include those, but then (paradoxically) she might be notable enough for an article, even as a legendary figure. The absence of sources saying that she exists means that the article may be a hoax, or at best wishful thinking. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Roscelese, I don not like the accusation that I have intentionally created a hoax article. I suggest that you report me to Wikipedia for investigation.Regards--Aciram (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - *facepalm* Not sure how I can make it much more clear that I don't think it's an intentional hoax than by...stating that it's not an intentional hoax. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any search for al-Majriti that includes the word "daughter" goes back to the same core of information; doing it in books alone produces nothing. This seems to the fantasy of of an advocacy group but I cannot find any evidence that it is based upon any real primary source. Mangoe (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we've already established that electronic search is not going to help. there are plenty of sources in the world that aren't searchable electronically. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then produce one! THe only source we have is only electronic, after all. Mangoe (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

slow down, partner. if you read the discussion you will see that i have not suggested that we keep this article, actually. also, i've stated explicitly that the only electronic source we have is obviously not reliable. i'm working on producing a source, and, if i find one, i will suggest that we keep the article. now it's looking like the only modern source is an obscure book in spanish. i've ordered it through interlibrary loan, and maybe we'll know more when it comes in, or maybe we won't and i'll then think that we should delete the article. as of now i have absolutely no opinion one way or the other.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (e/c)Sources make someone notable and verifiable. While you could say that if she existed then she might be notable, the only way for us to know that is if she has coverage in independent, reliable sources. Just because it's been asserted by a single source that she existed doesn't mean that she did, and even if she did, simply being a woman, moslem would not make her notable, again, unless there is coverage of her notability. @Czarkoff: No, if she didn't exist then she definitely isn't notable. This is an encyclopedia, we don't publish conjecture. N^oformation ^Talk 03:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that being a female astronomer in the 11th century, and a moslem female scientist in the 11th century, does make her notable. I can not quite see how this argument can be ignored. This is unusual enough to be notable as a phenomena in itself. Somehow it seems as if though I am being ignored in this discussion, so I will therefore take my leave. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there's no evidence thus far that she even existed. Come up with that source first, and then we can talk. Mangoe (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clearly you're right. anyway, it seems that the diccionario de mujeres en la historia is the only thing anyone's found so far that has a claim to mention her, and it's not searchable electronically in any way that i can find. i've ordered the book through interlibrary loan and will report back eventually. the problem is that many libraries seem to have it cataloged as a reference work, so won't circulate it. but someone will. i also emailed the director of the organization that produced the poster to ask about sources, but so far nothing, and i'm betting she'll just come back with the diccionario.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would say that and you'd be wrong. Please see WP:NOTABLE, which on WP has a criteria of being talked about in reliable sources N^oformation ^Talk 18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my goodness, what would i be wrong about? did you think that i was going to cite some random person's email as support of anything? what i said, and what i mean, is that i think that if the director answers, the director will say that the actual printed book diccionario de mujeres en la historia was the source for the poster. possibly there are some other sources that we haven't found, which is why i asked the director. then i will look at the actual sources and see if (a) the information is actually in them, and (b) if the sources cite other sources, and (c) repeat if necessary. what exactly is problematic about this process? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

eek, my apologies to Noformation. i can see now that i take the time to look at the indentation properly that you weren't actually talking to me.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It occurs to me that sources are likely to be non-electronic and non-English. Possibly Spanish or Arabic. Also, it isn't exactly true that significant coverage of the subject is the only criterion that matters for notability. From Wikipedia:Notability (people), a scholar can be notable without her biography being the subject of secondary sources. She would be notable if she has made a widely recognized contribution to astronomy, or originated a significant new concept or discovery. Note that the concept or discovery is the notable thing that receives coverage, not necessarily the person; this is a possible exception to WP:NOTINHERITED. Simply "being an 11th century female Muslim astronomer" isn't really a good claim, although Wikipedia:Notability (academics) suggests that she'd be notable if sources make note of the rarity of female astronomers in her time — and it would be surprising if no source made note of this fact. Whether such sources exist is another matter. Anyone know how to spell her name in Arabic? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume it's spelled the way "Fatima" normally is spelled...I searched on fatima + astronomer (in Arabic), nothing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? I just googled for فاطمة الفلكي (fatima astronomer) and got 1.6 million hits. Google Scholar also returned an unmanageable number. I have no idea how to go about narrowing it down. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait, you're joking, right? What are these 1.6 million sources that I somehow just missed? Be serious now, and actually look at the hits instead of telling me there are 1.6 million pages that happen to contain both "fatima" and "astronomer." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - here's the search; you have to do it in arabic. it almost certainly means nothing, though, due to the fact that fatima, being a daughter of mohammed, is one of the most common first names for women in the muslim world. as a comparison, i get almost 3 million hits on mary+astronomer.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's another source, possibly the source for that calendar (due to the illustration being the same): http://biblioteca.uam.es/ciencias/Exposiciones/astronomia/astronomos.html — according to the translation, it looks like she might have done some significant work in astronomy. It seems that any description of Fatima has essentially the same text, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the calendar is the source for the page - see the bottom "Extractos del «Calendario de Astrónomas que Hicieron Historia 2009»" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The creator of this page has just created a version of it on the Swedish Wikipedia, which seems like a rather dishonest move. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. A reading of the creator's user page suggests that the Swedish Wikipedia may be his home country's Wikipedia. In any case, each Wikipedia has their own policies and guidelines. If the article exists there, that is not a concern for us here. No disruption or harm has been done. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Presuming this gets deleted, could a note be put on the deletion asking for it to be speedy undeleted if an appropriate source is found? A couple people have said they're trying to find one. As it stands, we should probably delete, but if we plan ahead a bit, we'll have avoided any problems if we were wrong. 86.176.217.241 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': I'm starting to think that there might be a confusion of "Fatimas". Here is a list of notable women of al-Andalus, you can find in page 10, "Fatima bint Abu al-Qasim al-Qurtubi al-Sharat" (died 1216 C.E.). Well this Fatima is notable as she was an Islamic scholar and worked very closely with her father. Since Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti is referred to in old sources (notably Ibn Khaldun) simply as "Abu al-Qasim al-Qurtubi al-Majriti" given the similarities of the names (Majrit close to Sherat when written in Arabic, especially in old manuscripts) someone might have confused her for a daughter of Abu al-Qasim. This might explain the scarce modern-day references to her in Spanish. In Arabic sources, hardly anything of Maslmah's life is known about, so I doubt any reference to his daughter -if he had one- can ever be found. Tachfin (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooooh. Do you think it's the same person? This new source doesn't mention anything at all about astronomy, though certainly there were many Renaissance-men and -women. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This documernt refers to her as a "possibly fictional astronomer", apparently replicating content from somewhere else [40]. Paul B (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a highly likely that "Fatima de Madrid" is a fictionnal charachter, born out of confusion with "Fatima bint abu al-Qasim al Qurtubi" the Islamic scholar who worked with the her father -"abu al-Qasim al Qurtubi"- who happened to have a very similar name to Abu al-Qasim the polymath. It is not uncommon for some Spanish writers to fudge into old Arabic manuscripts and fantasize about the Muslims of Iberia. A woman astronomer of that era is of course more romantic than a woman Islamic scholar. Tachfin (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - i am beginning to believe also that something like this must be what happened. on the other hand, some of the statements in that calendar are weirdly specific, like the bit about "the corrections of fatima" and the specific works that she supposedly helped her father on. i'd really like to figure out where those statements came from, just to satisfy my curiosity. i'm losing hope of being able to find a source that will make it plausible that she existed, although i remain fascinated by uncovering the process by which she came to be thought to have existed. Paul B, good find! why is it that these astronomers don't cite their sources? so much for the cult of the expert on wp.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It may be likely... but we don't base (or keep) articles on what we think is likely (see WP:NOR). It actually does not matter if Fatima de Madrid is fictional or factual, legendary or real (we have lots of articles on fictional or legendary figures after all)... what matters is whether there are independent reliable sources that discuss the topic. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have tried this a bunch of different ways, but I cannot find anything that doesn't trace back to www.sheisanastronomer.org, including any sign of these "Corrections". An advocacy organization producing an uncited biography of a person we cannot otherwise find a trace of is about as fringey as it gets. The argument that we might find sources is insufficient; if those sources are found, then someone can write the article de novo. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've just added a link to a long article about Maslama al-Majriti, here it is. It includes a short bib list about him that might be useful. More info: There is a discussion about her with some new links here. There is also a mention of another female medieval astronomer, "Maeriam al-Ijliya al-Astrulabi". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
query—for tachfin. is there any chance that Fatima al-Fehri, mentioned here, might be confusible with the fatima under discussion here, if there is such a fatima? she's mentioned in connection with both her father and with astronomy, although not so much with al-andalus.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my initial thought but it's unlikely since the life of Fatima al-Fihri is relatively well documented; She lived two centuries earlier and never set foot in Iberia, she was primarily known as a pious woman who inherited a big fortune from her father and uncle which she utilized to build al-Qarawiyin where many subjects were thought including astronomy. Additionally, Fatema Mernissi -mentioned in the link above- wrote extensively about historically important Muslim women, I don't think she would have missed a figure as extraordinary as a women astronomer of the 10th-11th century. Many Sources would have been found by now if this person really existed, so far only a 1998 Spanish book and a couple of astronomy websites mention her. Tachfin (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ok, good to know. i'm getting quite ready to say that she did not exist. i also emailed the guy who wrote the article that Paul B found to ask why he put in "probably fictional." my feeling is starting to be that we're going to have to delete this article, and if we can find rs that discuss how people came to imagine that she existed, recreate it with an explanation of that story for the sake of all the people who look at that calendar and wonder who she was.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have to say, this is one of the more fascinating AfD discussions I have ever had the pleasure of reading. Now I've gotten all interested in a topic for which sources are really damn hard to find. Regardless of whether this person was real or fictional, it's interesting. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- i definitely agree with you there!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in spite of Keep arguments that amount to nothing but WP:INHERIT, this woman lacks the multiple examples of detailed coverage in reliable sources mandated by WP:BIO, whether she existed or not. Agricolae (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment—the author of the material discovered by Paul B tells me in an email that he has no sources other than the ones we've discovered already, and also that he came to the conclusion himself that she was possibly fictional, and that, in his knowledge, there's not another source that states that explicitly. i'm going to wait on the diccionario to show up before coming out for a deletion, but it's looking like that's the way it's going to go.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good investigative work! a woman astronomer of the 11th century isn't something casual; mainstream published sources would've certainly discussed her if she was real. Tachfin (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Per tertiary sources: Safe Graíño, Cristina (1998). "Dictionary of women in history." Madrid: Espasa Calpe. ISBN 84-239-8631-4 and (in Spanish) "Fátima de Madrid." Universidad Autonoma de Madrid. Additionally, "Majrīṭī: Abū al‐Qāsim Maslama ibn Aḥmad al‐Ḥāsib al‐Faraḍī al‐Majrīṭī." The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers, may serve to verify information in the article. Perhaps more searching in academic sources and library print sources can further qualify this topic's notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait--do you have Dictionary of women in history? What does it say, and on what page? If you don't have that information, then how can you claim it even is a tertiary source for this subject? (BTW, please don't translate foreign-language titles: it's incorrect and confusing.) Drmies (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wanted to ask the same thing. If you have that book what does it say? On what did the author base her report of "Fatima de Madrid"? Tachfin (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the three 'new' sources, the second of these is identical, verbatim, right down to the illustrations, with the calendar that has already been identified as the source for our page in the original nomination, so it hardly counts as an independent source (since the images are cropped on the new page, it seems to have been lifted from the calendar). The third doesn't name her at all. That leaves the first, so the question by Drmies is appropos, as this is the only thing new to the discussion that may indicate a greater notability. And by the way, the author's surname is Segura Graíño - you never want to translate a surname. I'm guessing you haven't actually seen this, right? Agricolae (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as it pains me to support deletion of a medieval woman, and as much as I am saddened by having to agree with User:Agricolae (ha!), I don't see any other option. There are no reliable sources, none whatsoever, there are only doubts and an odd website or two. I've plowed through JSTOR, looking for different permutations of the key words, and came up with nothing whatsoever. Now, on a topic like this, if none of us (and some of the editors here are academic professionals) can find anything reliable, then we have no choice. And while it is true that there could be perfectly valid offline material, we don't have that material, nor do we seem to have access to a derivative publication. Yes, Amatulić, a fascinating character and an interesting discussion, and I hate to have to say "delete." Drmies (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—ok, i got a copy of this: Otto Neugebauer (1962). The astronomical tables of al-Khwārizmī: translation with commentaries of the Latin version., which is the book that she was supposed to have helped majriti edit and revise. first, it turns out that no arabic mss of majriti's version exist, so the source is a latin translation, probably done by abelard of bath. neugebauer uses suter's critical edition of the latin text, and updates it using every known latin ms, even those unknown to suter. he has a detailed appendix which covers every possible contributor to each of the known mss, and never ever once says anything about fatima, or even mentions majriti having a daughter. i'm still waiting on the diccionario to come in, but it's more for curiosity than with hope at this point, because i can't imagine that they'll have a good source that nobody else has found and cited. by now, we've all done a lot of excellent research, but it's original research, and couldn't even be the basis for rewriting the article to say that she was imaginary. sigh... — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alf--I hope you know you have an academic article waiting to happen here. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- it crossed my mind, but clearly it's a joint paper, except none of us know who our collaborators are. perhaps we can all write up something for whichever other wikimedia project that kind of thing would go in?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That won't get you tenure. Write it up and thank the participants here in a footnote. Good luck! Drmies (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree. It would be a shame for this fascinating discussion to go to waste. Alf, if you can benefit from it in your career, go ahead, then some good will come of all of this. You've done a lot of the work already. I'm sure others won't mind. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - thanks for the votes of confidence, everyone! as it happens (i'm trying to be vague here) i am in a position where either i don't think about tenure or else writing papers on this kind of thing won't help with with tenure (which i may or may not have to think about). what's actually more interesting to me than the outcome is the process we're carrying on here. this is the only afd i've ever participated in that i will be sorry to see closed.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—here is another astronomer who's been confused historically with majriti, but no word on a daughter: Helaine Selin (31 July 1997). Encyclopaedia of the history of science, technology, and medicine in non-western cultures. Springer. p. 602. ISBN 978-0-7923-4066-9.

Comment - One of the works claimed for Fatima de Madrid is the Tratado del astrolabio held at Escorial. However, Biografías de matemáticos árabes que florecieron en España says it is described by Casiri as follows "Tractatus de Astrolabio, XXV capita complectens, inscriptus Astrolabio descriptio, et intelligentia nominum signorumque descripto planispherii, tun externorum, tun internorum: auctore Ahmedo ben Alsopharo Cordobensi, qui sexto Egiro seculo maximé inclaruit." (emphasis added) In other words, the work itself bears an inscription attributing it to someone else, Ahmed ibn al-Soffar of Cordoba - in full Abulcasim Ahmed Benabdala Benomar el Gafiqui, known vulgarly as Benelsoffar. (Addition: this is Ibn al-Saffar, the protege of Maslama al-Majriti, Fatima's supposed father. Agricolae (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)) Of course, that doesn't mean he is the actual author, but if someone has suggested a revised authorship, again, we should have found it, I would think. (It is also possible that two different works named Tratado del astrolabio are in play here, but I see the supposed work of Fatima of Madrid explicitly identified by number as this Escorial mss.) Likewise, our original source from 2009 lists other works attributed to her, "También trabajaron sobre calendarios, el cálculo de las posiciones verdaderas del Sol, la Luna y los planetas, tablas de senos y tangentes, Astronomía esférica, tablas astrológicas, cálculos de paralaje, eclipses y visibilidad de la Luna", which appears to have been taken verbatim from the following text, "Los temas principales cubiertos en la obra son los calendarios; el cálculo de las posiciones verdaderas del Sol, la Luna y los planetas; tablas de senos y tangentes; astronomía esférica; tablas astrológicas; cálculos de paralajes y eclipses; y visibilidad de la Luna" that has appeared in WP.es since 2007 in a description of the works of Al-Juarismi [41]. Then again, none of the Ghits for "Correcciones de Fátima", her supposed work, predate the creation of her WP.es page in 2008. This has every appearance of being a hoax that has gone viral. Agricolae (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment—excellent! maybe not viral, but spiral, since it's possibly coming from wp.es to the world back to wp.en. it makes me want to get that russian book wp.es sources the sentence to.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, we can now dismiss any claim the calendar might have had to the benefit of the doubt, given it clearly co-opted the accomplishments of a distinct person and couldn't even be bothered to rephrase the pirated material. There is still the Diccionario, whatever it says. I note that the wp.es editor who created this page based on the Diccionario is still (quite) active. Agricolae (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete the sourcing is at this point insufficient and the notability questionable. Such articles may only be kept if it is certain that those issues can be fixed, but in this case it though it might be conceivable it is anything but certain.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so long as this is re-sourced, I will look for some online. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding trouble finding ones that dont mirror wikipedia, however book sources of which I have no access to, might exist in Spanish – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a likely hoax popularized by Spanish Wikipedia. The only source for the existence of such person is a 1998 book of Spanish feminist "Cristina Segura Graíño" and it is a primary source as far as we can see. Ms. Segura Graíño either has a primary source that we couldn't find (unlikely as such an exceptional discovery would've been covered elsewhere), made an error or just invented this character out of thin air. Al-Maqqari one of the earliest historians of al-Andalus and source of much material we know of about that period, made a list of notable women in Al-Andalus; I've checked it and no trace of such a person. There are not even any female scientists in it just poets. It's not in Said Al-Andalusi's biographies either. Why not email "Ms. Segura Graíño" and ask her what's the story behind this exactly? Tachfin (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete—that never occurred to me! she seems to be on the Facultad de Geografía e Historia and in the Departamento de Historia Medieval of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and her phone number and mailing address (not email?!) can be found through this directory, which doesn't allow direct linking to searches. it's pretty clear by now that nuestra querida Fátima nunca existió. but the book by Segura is still coming through ILL at some point, and I'll let everyone know what happens if no one else has figured it out yet. or maybe someone can find another way than email to get in touch with her?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment—actually, here is what looks like an old page with an email address. maybe someone who writes spanish wants to try?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [42] has an article about the Malaga Astronomical Society creating a calender listing the 12 most important international scholars in the field of astronomy, which included her. Note that in Spanish its "Fátima de Madrid" while Google translator makes some mistakes and changes the "de" into something else. [43] also gives coverage. Google news her name and the word "Astronomía" [44] and you get other results. Those two seem fine. Dream Focus 13:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these is reporting on the calendar, and just mentions Fatima in passing based on what the calendar reported. The second simply paraphrases or repeats verbatim the same text as is in the calendar. Read all the rest of the GNews hits and they are all either reporting on the calendar or reporting on female scientists deriving their information from the calendar. This would be reason to consider the calendar notable, perhaps, but does the fact that a handful of media sites parrot this info really grounds for notability of Fatima, particularly since the calendar clearly made up much of what it reported about her? Agricolae (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Dream Focus: You might want to read the prior comments; you'll see that the two "delete" entries above yours are from participants who made their "delete" determination only after extensive research and deliberation on this page. While I would love to see this article kept, I have to agree that this may be a meme. The sources appear to parrot each other and no definitive historical source has been found to establish the existence of this person as an historical figure. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it as the reference says about a different person than who the article is describing. DBhuwanSurfer 16:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)
Delete without prejudice - until and unless we can find a solid source as to her very existence, far less notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q7 (software)[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability of product Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually unique the features are mentioned: developed BDD-style scripting language (ECL - Eclipse Command Language), Contexts for AUT state modelling - features that differ the instrument from other tools presented Mr.scavenger

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a test automation solution for Eclipse-based applications; obvious solution-speak issues. Google News has not heard of it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kukutesvara Siva Temple[edit]

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

Article appears to be a academic report on a *private* temple. Fails WP:GNG apart from this though. Only link is basically an official form saying that the building exits - not a claim to notability. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC) See my comment below.[reply]

This appears to have the same problem, although I don't know how to add it to this AfD (or if I even should). Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. Not an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure what it is.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See this discussion on my talk. Apperently some students took official reports and tried to wikify them? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 15:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see below for rethink) ~~- had a good search but nothing except blogs and a slide-show. Fails Notability, minor temple.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a bunch of these articles. While they most certainly need cleanup, I am loath to say delete. Surely for temples this old, there must be more documentation. LadyofShalott 00:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 00:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very poorly-written article, but this temple's age (12th–13th century) makes it a definite keep. If it was in Britain, for example, the age would automatically make it a Grade I listed building, which would make it automatically notable for us. The fact it's in India and has less coverage does not make it any less notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "If it was in Britain, for example, the age would automatically make it a Grade I listed building". No it wouldn't. See here. And it isn't in Britain.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would most certainly be listed ("All buildings erected before 1700 "which contain a significant proportion of their original fabric" will be listed") and almost all buildings of this age are indeed Grade I. You'd be hard-pressed to find one that isn't unless it's been substantially altered. As to not being in Britain, I know; I was merely using this as an illustration of how historic buildings of this age are generally considered notable (I should have thought that was actually fairly obvious). We do not apply different standards of notability to different countries, as this would be systemic bias. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I will hold my hand up to the systemic bias. But the article makes it pretty clear that it's a minor buliding ("3.80 metres"), that the fabric of the temple has been modified over the years ("of modern construction") and that it's dating is not clear(no "precise date" given). I can assure you that this building would not be an "automatic" Grade I.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that still existing as an example of architecture of that age should be in itself a sign of notability. What does what country it's in have to do with anything, TigerBoy? LadyofShalott 12:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a couple of books that talk about this (one was already used as a source, just that it wasn't listed properly), the other is available in many libraries and while it doesn't provide significant info, it still talks about (briefly) the period of construction, dynasty and architectural style. Given the age of the temple (modern construction is only parts of it -- as is the case with many places of worship ransacked in religious conflict or affected by the vagaries of weather over more than a thousand years), I'd expect there to be more Oriya language sources. —SpacemanSpiff 10:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article was very badly-written with poor evidence (hence my earlier delete view), much better and more substantial now, with proper references. In context of Bhubaneswar "city of temples", we certainly want good coverage of the ancient cultural, architectural and religious artefacts in East India (and Kukutesvara is probably notable for all those reasons). The sensible choices open to us are to keep the article or to merge it into a list of temples of Bhubaneswar (there's a table listing the main temples already - but each one has a blue link). A list containing 600 temple descriptions with photos and references would be VERY long, so a separate article per temple does seem best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing/switching !votes/whatever you want to call it per Chiswick Chap's work. Excellent job by him, and I can no longer support this articles deletion. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 10:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per addition of sources to article, the availability of sources, and the fact that the nominator has withdrawn the nomination to delete. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Broken Sword. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Sword 2.5: The Return of the Templars[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Broken Sword 2.5: The Return of the Templars" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

I could not find significant coverage in any reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:45, 19 September 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) 16:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources (Broken Sword 2.5 official website and Facebook page) are reliable sources, because they're OFFICIAL pages and made by the Broken Sword 2.5 creators/developers.--7arazred (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Offical" may be reliable in this case, however WP:GNG requires secondary sources, not primary ones. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep—It's been covered for Wired by former contributing writer Jean Snow.[45] There's also a review on MobyGames.[46] Regards, RJH (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MobyGames review you are referring to is user-submitted content, not a reliable source. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about these reviews: [47]? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge - Use the Wired article for verification in the Broken Sword article. A single sentence summary will suffice. The reviews listed at MobyGames are on sites that, as far as I can tell, would not pass as reliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just Adventure is reliable (WP:VG/RS). A few are considered (like GameStar Germany) but so far no one has built consensus for them. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooh, okay. I agree with a merge, then: probably worth a full paragraph. Marasmusine (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to series article. Don't think this needs a separate article for now per WP:SPLIT. Although this may barely meet notability criteria, there is not enough content to warrant a separate article. It can be fully covered in a few properly sourced paragraphs in the series article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a well known free version of the classic Broken Sword. --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 18:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Howley[edit]

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

Writer of very marginal notability with a completely unreferenced and poorly written article. An IP contributor on the talk page claims to be the subject and wishes the article to be deleted. It has been past practice that the subject's wishes be taken into account in BLP issues when they are of marginal notability. I am posting this as a matter of procedure and have no opinion in the matter. Also, despite an inability to confirm the identity of the IP contributor, the address geolocates to Iowa City, Iowa. This is consistent with the published location of the subject. Trusilver 05:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed not notable and apparently unwanted. - DonCalo (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if someone hadn't asked for it to be removed, I would have saud delete as not meeting notable criteria.Heywoodg ^talk 21:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory S. Rosen[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG. — CharlieEchoTango — 05:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as original PRODer of this article.. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in independent reliable sources, so fails the general notability guideline. To clarify, I only removed the BLPPROD tag because the article had a reference that supported one of the assertions made in the article and therefore BLPPROD was not applicable, not because I thought the subject was notable. Jenks24 (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing it to a regular PROD would have been acceptable though. It's okay, AfD is 3 days faster. :) — CharlieEchoTango — 06:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I probably should have changed it to a normal PROD. Jenks24 (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:49, 4 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) 18:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found coverage in reliable sources for this topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Edward R. Murrow College of Communication. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murrow Center for Media and Health Promotion[edit]

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

Notability concerns per WP:CORP. RA (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed a large chunk of text copied directly from [48]. Possibly useful content there, but it was a clear copyright violation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Edward R. Murrow College of Communication - where it is currently not mentioned but should be. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Edward R. Murrow College of Communication - per Gene93k. The center does appear to be notable from an academic standpoint but could/should probably be covered in that article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Edward R. Murrow College of Communication per Toddst1 →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of largest European cities in history. causa sui (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historic list of cities of Europe[edit]

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

Very confusing list that has nothing to do with the WP:NPOV violating title of "historic list". Violates no original research, WP:NOT#INFO, and WP:V (not much in sourcing, and other cities can claim a large population in the 1400s and such). I'm surprised the article lasted since 2001 which I think was because of the age of the article. Delete Secret ^account 21:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ but consider renaming or even splitting into separate articles by date. The basic idea of listing the major European cities at different times is sound, certainly encyclopedic, and indeed can be found in history textbooks. I've seen versions that would cover pre-medieval Europe too. TheGrappler (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is encyclopedic, but this violates way too many policies to be salvageable. Secret ^account 02:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Title breaches NPOV but can be resolved by a rename. As I explained, I can't see a breach of NOT. I can't see a breach of NOR or V either, as the list was prepared by someone else and published in what seems to be a reliable source. Your complaint appears to be that the source is incorrect or selective and has missed various other cities off - if you can give an example of that, it suggests you have a second source which could in turn be used to add to the article. (But actually the list looks fairly reasonable to me - urban populations were much smaller back then, and the main urban centers have also changed.) TheGrappler (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wonder about the accuracy of these lists. For example, Constantinople is shown as the largest city in Europe in 1700, but not among the top cities in 1800, implying that the population shrunk during that period from 700,000 to less than 120,000. Yet History of Istanbul says that "As the years passed the population increased, from about 80,000 at the death of Mehmet, to 300,000 by the eighteenth century, and 400,000 in 1800." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Just discovered we have another article on this topic, so suggest Merge to List of largest European cities in history? TheGrappler (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as it is not useful and WP:IINFO Curb Chain (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's a breach of WP:IINFO? If you actually read WP:IINFO, I can't see anything there that this article violates except that at present it lacks textual description. But that could easily be done: for example, talking about how estimates of historic city populations were made, and why different sources disagree, as well as highlighting important trends in rise/decline of certain cities. That's a question of improvement not deletion, of course. Certainly articles about historic city populations are important for understanding European history, so I don't buy "not useful". TheGrappler (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it definitely would not be a list if it was a discussion. It may need to be rewritten.Curb Chain (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, that's definitely not true. Go and have a look at WP:FL. Many of our featured "lists" (by how we class the article content, and how we write the title) actually have more content in written paragraphs than in the table or list itself! Those paragraphs often introduce the subject area, how the information was gathered and defined etc. But the focus of the article remains the list, which is why it's called "List of..." TheGrappler (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population growth of European cities then?Curb Chain (talk) 23:18, 8 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} 05:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This is a hot mess, but in theory it could be fixed. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: badly framed article but looking at it shows there is a legitimate topic here that has been covered by reliable sources. I would highly recommend a new name for this article that delineates clearer standards for what this is about. It should NOT be a list of every city that has ever existed in Europe at various times. Dzlife (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name List of largest European cities in history would be clearer, but there's already an article there to which I suspect this content should be merged? TheGrappler (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good target for it. I would support a merge. Dzlife (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of largest European cities in history, which is what I think this article is trying to be anyway. Ravendrop 00:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of largest European cities in history. I was going to say the title for this list is atrocious and that List of most populous cities in Europe organized by century would have been more descriptive, but it's close enough in scope and purpose to the other one found by TheGrappler. The merge target is accounting for population, not area or some other measure, even though it fails to make its criteria explicit. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of largest European cities in history. Totally redundant. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanchez Arellano Cartel[edit]

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

Article is inaccurate and fails WP:NOR, as the "Sanchez Arellano Cartel" is in fact the Tijuana Cartel: Luis Fernando Sánchez Arellano has taken over the cartel's operations, it is not a new separate cartel or new name. See also Talk:Sanchez Arellano Cartel. No reliable sources to indicate that the "Sanchez Arellano Cartel" exists. - DonCalo (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In favor of deletion. I also requested it to be deleted several months ago but my request was denied. By doing an internet search of less than 2 min one can realize there is no such thing as Sanchez Arellano Cartel, but Tijuana Cartel. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only sources for this material are all both pre-2011 despite the claim that this cartel was formed this year. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support usage of this separate name. §everal⇒|Times 16:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. No results to support this particular name, even recent articles keep referring to the organization as the Tijuana cartel or as the "Clan Arellano Felix" — frankie (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 03:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KTG Education Group[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. this is small private college not a public one. gets little indepth coverage [49]. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nominator - private org asserting no independent wikipedia notability in the article or in my search or in the discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not a small college. Read their about page. http://www.legendagroup.edu.my/about-us Its "one of the largest private tertiary institutions in Malaysia", and it runs five colleges. "Over the years, more than 32,000 students in the country and region have graduated from the Legenda Education Group." Sounds notable enough to me. Not sure how many people that attend college stay long enough to graduate or how many students a year they have. Dream Focus 00:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where is the third party coverage to meet WP:ORG? LibStar (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added to the article: "Malaysian education group to visit Chennai.", from The Hindu. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added more referenced information to the article, from: "On the cutting edge." The Star (Malaysia). Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another reliable source, also added to the article: "Link with UK varsity.", from The Star. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is no need to come back and report every time you find a new source. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Appears to just barely pass WP:CORPDEPTH, with significant coverage in secondary sources, particularly the "Link with UK varsity" article. The "Malaysian education group to visit Chennai" article is brief, but states more than just routine coverage; it also has information about the college itself. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - our practice is too keep verifiable degree awarding institutions and WP:GNG is met. TerriersFan (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant college, and we have for quite a few years now kept all articles about verifiable degree-fgranting institutions of higher education. I do not see where the nom gets the distinction between private and public colleges to be meaningful, any more than the distinction between private and public high schools -- or anything else. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Couple (mechanics). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pair of opposing forces[edit]

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

I don't see this ever developing into an article. There is not much more to say about this than the literal meaning.T R 12:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC) T R 12:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not stand as an independent page. Biophys (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the irresistable cannonball strikes the indestructable wall, the result is delete. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's a lot to say about pairs of opposing forces, but in an encyclopaedia of physics one finds it said under couple, equilibrium, and Newton's third law. This could redirect to any of those. I suggest the first, since a couple is what this article is striving to describe without actually knowing the right name for the concept. Uncle G (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rajagopal Kamath[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF. Nothing in Scholar, or anywhere else for that matter, that I can find. As for WP:AUTH, I am struggling to find existence of anything bar the odd passing reference. Of course this may be due to language issues, so bringing it here for discussion. PROD removed by author. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. [50] and [51] are articles from The Hindu that mention him. [52] mentions him at the very end (search does not work on this pdf). When the article was created, it was claimed that Kamath was the author of 17 books and over 200 articles; it would be useful if the original editor listed them with details of their publication. It is plausible that the editor who wrote the article on Kamath will develop it so that it demonstrate notability. I suspect that the reason the editor has not done this, was that he/she did not realise what was necessary. If it is decided not to keep this article, please could it be 'userfied', so that the original editor can continue to develop this article to such a standard as to justify inclusion.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are nowhere near adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, basically per nom. Essentially zero citability in GScholar and WebOfScience, nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Moreover, appears to be a possible WP:FRINGE case, and the article reads as basically a WP:OR piece. Nsk92 (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nsk92. ^Khukri 07:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reads like a fan page or self-promotion page, and the sources cited do not appear to meet the standards needed for the academic claims made. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He writes in Malayalam language. Quite popular too. Several interesting quotes from the books reproduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameseeker (talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTH. Also seems to be promotional material with a strong indication of WP:COI. This sentence "He put forward the importance of neutrinos in understanding the fundamental concepts physics or understanding the shortcomings of Albert Einstein’s idea that nothing can travel faster than light and the superluminal velocities of light itself." is misleading, sounds like they are trying to claim they invented particle physics. Yes clear WP:FRINGE and WP:OR concerns as well. Polyamorph (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TinyButStrong[edit]

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

Web template system with no asssertion of coverage in reliable third-party sources, and all I could find were forums, press releases, and false positives. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's really nothing on this on the web, barring the product's own self-publicity page. -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (I'm the submitter of the article). Here are some reliable sources:
- a solution for SugareCRM,

- an article in a French magazine,

- a complete solution based on TinyButStrong,

- a short Google view of sites using TBS (sites with errors and which does not use the Silent Mode),

- referenced by PHP speakers in Canada, cited in pro books.

- a [technical document] about Dynamic Content,

- a Tutorial by a famous [French Developer Site]

- a solution for creating [OpenOffice documents under Symfony],

Parchemin (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that looks better: just had a look around your suggested links. I'm happy to be converted. Will you add these links to the article? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick said: " Will you add these links to the article?". The French article is not in Engish, the Google view is interesting not good for the listed sites, a reference about PhpMotion could be a kind of add. I think I will maintain the article and add other references on the way.Parchemin (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The presence of reliable sources within articles is not a valid argument for article deletion. Rather, Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 states - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That wasn't the basis for the nomination. The comment you are responding to is not from the nominator. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable source availability listed by user Parchemin above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TBS: I use it every day... I'm a long-time (6 or 7 years) TBS developer and a longer time (15 years) PHP developer who has become 100% committed to using the TinyButStrong template engine - for everything. Two inter-related reasons for this: (1) easy to use for developing sophisticated, web based, database driven applications and (2) it keeps my clients from being locked into one vendor for both their 'look and feel' and their PHP programming. Tomhenry151 (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - of the sources offered above, only the PHP Magazine represents a reliable source to establish notability. The others do not. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That wasn't the basis for the nomination. The comment you are posting is about Notability while the nominator claims "no assertion of coverage". This is not the same thing. You are discussing about TinyButStrong sort of fame, while the discussion is about TBS reality. The sources offered are proofs that reliable third-parties really know and use TBS. The best proof among them is the Google search, in my opinion. Parchemin (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complement: I've added three new third-party sources in the list above.Parchemin (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google translation of the French magazine shows this is in fact significant coverage. It is a notable thing, surely covered in places that talk about this, most of which don't have Google news search indexing them, so its hard to find them. Dream Focus 02:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments that this article simply lumps together disparate topics (many of which are covered elsewhere) are convincing. Those wishing to see a disambiguation page at this title are encouraged to create it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locating[edit]

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

unreferenced dictionary definition / WP:OR. not notable by WP:NOTDICT. Contested PROD Stuartyeates (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is obviously notable - see Position location techniques and applications, for example. The dicdef and OR claims of the nomination seem absurd. What is the original idea here? Where is the dictionary-like content? Warden (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That ref looks more appropiate to Locating engine or Real-time locating system to me, but that's just me. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator has a curious notion of what a dictionary definition is. While the article is a bit of a mess, as are many other Wikipedia articles related to locating, there is definitely room and a need on Wikipedia for an article that provides an overview of the field, next to more specialized articles such as Collocation (wireless metrics), Dead reckoning, Differential GPS, Fuzzy locating system, Hybrid positioning system, Local positioning system, Location-based service, Mobile phone tracking, Multilateration, Positioning system, Radiodetermination, Ranging, Real-time locating system, Triangulation, Trilateration, and Wireless triangulation, among many others. --Lambiam 09:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there's room for an overview that links to all these pages and explains the field, but the current article does even attempt to do either as far as I can see. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unsourced dictionary definition. Yes, it's verbose, but only because it wanders so far afield. This article is not about locating, it is about "locating", its meanings, usage and history, except where it wanders into Classical passive locating systems, Locating engine, Fuzzy locating (and its antonym, Crisp locating), Real-time locating, etc. I don't know what this article is about (hell, it doesn't know what it's about), but the only content on the titled subject is about the word. Yeah, we can dig up sources about various topics (notable or otherwise) that include the word "locating", but I don't expect one source discussing all of those tangential discussion, let alone several reliable sources that each discuss all of them. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added the link above provided by user:Warden to the article in a new further reading section. This helps to establish notability for the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's the full link, added: *Muñoz, David; Vargas, César (2009.) "Position location techniques and applications." Elsevier, Inc. ISBN 9780123743534
Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SummerPhD hit the nail on the head. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not a dictionary definition, nor is it original research, so the nominators reasons fail. The article is about a notable concept. Dream Focus 20:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Yes, it's possible to find sources that have the word "locating" in them somewhere. It's a common word. That doesn't mean you can necessarily build an article from them. This is one of those articles that, in its desperation to avoid being just a WP:DICDEF, indiscriminately grabs and incorporates any old junk it can. The result is an incoherent mish-mash of nonsense that isn't about anything in particular and tells the reader nothing useful. Reyk _YO! 00:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SummerPhD said it better than I'd explain it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - topic is too general. Simone (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate plan: why not convert this to a WP:DAB page to direct users to all the related articles mentioned here? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 2 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} 05:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SummerPhd. Odd collection of things lumped into a dicdef. Omits the common usages as "locating underground facilities" in which case the locater knows where he is and tries to find what is underground, or where some underground thing might be such as a power line gas line, or water line. Edison (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - My first thought was that the content belongs in Location-based service, but maybe material could be taken from there (and other location articles) and put into Locating. Alternatively, why not convert it to a category page? --Northernhenge (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SummerPhd. Odd collection of things lumped into a dicdef, which somehow assumes that numerous related processes are not "locating." Omits the common usages as "locating underground facilities" in which case the locater knows where he is and tries to find what is underground, or where some underground thing might be such as a power line gas line, or water line. Maybe it needs a better title, a broader coverage of locating activities, or maybe it should be a disambiguation page. Somewhat redundant to articles on Global Positioning System, LORAN, Triangulation, Radio navigation, Navigation, Radiolocation, Real-time locating system, VHF omnidirectional range, and Tactical air navigation system. Edison (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Beeblebrox. I'm basically in line with the other "delete" !voters: this is fundamentally a dicdef that attempts to cover a bunch of topics. And that, my friends, is called a disambiguation page. Locating is certain something people would want to search for; it does indeed receive hits now and then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Kings of Oceania 2006 Round 1[edit]

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

also nominating:

here we go again with another non notable series of fighting qualifying results that fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. keep voters must provide evidence of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - zero independent sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These are some of the biggest and most historically significant events ever held in kickboxing. Many of them feature Grand Prixs which determine the best fighters in the region, and which allows them qualify for the World GP at the end of the year. The Amsterdam, Seoul and Las Vegas events in particular feature many, many World champions. - Minowafan (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

like in other AfDs you fail to provide any sources to back your claim of historically significant as per WP:PERSISTENCE. LibStar (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per WP:ROUTINE. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion this guy just have an anti- K-1 agenda. Why don't just delete every K-1 related article, since it's not "notorious enough" to exist in the mind of this so-called contributor who just want to wipe every piece of information related to the biggest kickboxing promotion in the world? Besides, I'm sure there might be sources about some events, but possibly on a non-English language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.26.246.50 (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Langrill[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria of WP:BIO. The only information I can find from reliable sources is the fact that he's been convicted of fraud (e.g. see [53]) and is suing some others for slander. Meanwhile most of the references in the article are along the lines of "confirmed by [some individual]", nowhere near meeting Wikipedia standards for reliability. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 04:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator. Althoough interviews may be considered good primary soruces, Wikipedia does not consider them reliable. Buggie111 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The keeps actually have the better of it by my reckoning, but this is an area in which the intersection of policy and guideline is a bit blurred. The deletes have numerical superiority, but I cannot say consensus was reached. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. There is no hard and fast rule whether the GNG trumps a subject specific guideline or vice versa. In this case, there is no consensus whether that the admitted failure of the article to meet the GNG should compel deletion. Mkativerata (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Hack[edit]

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

I have re-edited the introduction of that article without explanation in the "edit summary": I removed reference of one animated show from the lead because her contribution to the Nickelodeon show may be pointless right now. This person provided many voiceovers; only The Brady Bunch movies are worth mentioning. Aside from those movies, I don't think she's notable for anything else, even with 60 or 100 contributions to the entertainment industry. In fact, fictional characters are more notable than Olivia Hack who voiced and/or portrayed them. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)~~ Count my vote for delete if you can. --Gh87 (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This is essentially an unsourced BLP (IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical info). Presumed notability based on roles is marginal at best. With significant coverage, I might be convinced to change my !vote, but I don't see that happening. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is made up of many sections and subsections and yes, some do seem to be at odds with others, or sometimes even with policy. In respecting the header of all guidelines that encourages common sense, the SNGs have been built over time to outline those circumstances where a topic might fail GNG though not being the recipient of wide coverage, yet still might be worthy of notice.

Here's the way I see it... The GNG defines cases where topic notability is usually quite apparent, and the SNGs define those topics where notability is less obvious but still worth consideration per common sense.

The simplistic formula for notability could be written "meeting GNG = notability, but if not meeting GNG, then meeting SNG = notability".

And conversely, "not meeting GNG OR SNG = non-notability".

Per policy, notability assertions must be verifiable in reliable sources, but the GNG is not a trump, and the SNGs do not themselves mandate SIGCOV. SNGs do not trump the GNG. GNG does not trump the SNGs. They are both parts of WP:N and are intended to work in concert with each and should not be seen as disharmony. A topic can fail a SNG and meet the GNG to be notable. A topic can fail GNG and meet SNG to be notable.

The guidelines are not a perfect system (which is why they are not policy), but they have been established over years of discussion and the success of Wikipedia shows they work reasonably well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I mistakenly removed the PROD tag from this article while removing PRODs from a series of articles that never should have been tagged. While I'm not in favor of deletion, this wasn't one of the articles I meant to challenge. I will say that removing the reference to "Hey Arnold!" because the nominator feels "no one watches it anymore" was inappropriate. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes NACTORS as a actor in the fourth season of Gilmore Girls, her voice work, and The Brady Bunch films. AfD isn't cleanup and PROD reasoning was highly inappropriate and read as an attack on something else other than the article content. Nate • (chatter) 18:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - NACTORS can establish a presumption of notability. This article lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, without which no topic is notable. That was the [PROD reasoning]: "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements...." There is nothing "highly inappropriate" about that that I can see. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The GNG is not the only part of WP:N that editors may consider (see my comment above). The notability assertion of having significant roles in multiple notable productions requires verifiability, not SIGCOV, else the SNGs are worthless. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - WP:V (policy, not a guideline like WP:N) states, flatly: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - SummerPhD (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment No argument from me, as we are in agreement that verifiability is the key, and per policy, her work meeting WP:ENT MUST BE (and IS) verifiable. My point though was that the mandated verifiability itself need not itself be significant coverage, as WP:N and its constituent parts allow us different ways by which to determine notability other than SIGCOV. Using due diligence, I have already added her awards and confirmation of such to the article. Verifiability of all can be found... all it takes is the looking. And as I rarely just do a drive-by with my opinions, I have begun work and do recognize that there is more that can and will be done :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shame, it's true that the fictional characters she voiced are so notable and for her around 20 years of active in the industry there aren't many sources. Hope this helps the debate - additional info on her birth date and second source from one of the projects she attends (The Last Airbender) - Link Perfectford (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The tv.com source looks ok, though it doesn't give us much. The second source, though, is user created content, not a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNG is not the only part of WP:N that we may consider. The notability assertion of having significant roles in multiple notable productions requires verifiability, not SIGCOV, else the SNGs are worthless. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO for her voice work being twice nominated for a notable award. That information and citations now added to article. Yes, more to do.... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marginal figure who's still "up-and-coming after all these years. The nominations for minor award don't suffice to constitute notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep passes WP:BIO very notable with live action and voice over roles. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The O.C. (season 4). While there was some agreement that the notable episodes should be kept outright, there was no consensus on which, if any, episodes were notable. There was wide agreement that the edit history should be preserved as well. I am simply redirecting the articles to the season 4 article, but leaving the edit history intact so that appropriate material that is not already in the summary article can be merged there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The O.C. episodes from season 4, volume 1[edit]

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

Like many articles of 4th Season episodes of The O.C., "The Case of the Franks" has no notability established, and the article hasn't improved for two years since tag banner. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

~~--Gh87 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)~~ They were previously PROD'ed, but they were contested for disagreements. What do you think? --Gh87 (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As User:Jclemens noted, per WP:ATD, these articles should be merged and redirected, thus preserving the history, and making future expansion and improvement possible. Deleting these articles serves no productive purpose whatsoever. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't know: I'm voting delete.~~ Recently, the articles of less notable fictional characters of All My Children have been recreated without proper reasoning. Deletion prevents unnecessary, unreasonable recovery from anonymous users, including vandals. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)~~ The Dawn Patrol (The O.C.) was deleted under PROD and re-created as a "redirect" page; would administrators attempt to recover the previous revisions? --Gh87 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Done Agathoclea (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deletion as a preventitive measure is only appropriate in very rare cases; certainly not this one. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to neutral. Deletion prevents vandalism; keeping history invites irrational re-creation. However, previous revisions have been recently recovered for well-intended preservation. Redirect may be likely as this word should have been bolded; I won't vote for "redirect" yet. "Deleting" history is a travesty to everyone else; I am not one of them. "Redirection" is a start; don't expect me to be happy about this. --Gh87 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - at best merge and redirect if an individual episode is not up to spec. Edithistory has to be preserved. Agathoclea (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify, my !vote is not "merge and redirect", but rather "oppose". I favor merging and redirecting if necessary, as an alternative to deletion. My preference would be to keep, and improve, the existing articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer "keep", then how are episodes notable? Ratings and reviews are not enough; IMDB databases are submitted by users and accepted or rejected by administrators; fansite are less reliable. Do recent third-party publications discuss these above episodes? Do articles outside entertainment magazines discuss them? ~~--Gh87 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)~~ Even the show's notability is insufficient to have episodes stand on their own. Look at I Love Lucy episodes: very few episodes are notable; the rest are not. --Gh87 (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "keep" because the articles are not in such bad shape that they need to be redirected while improvements are made. Deleting factual articles that have been here for years because they may not meet the exact letter of notability guidelines is pedantic and unproductive. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those which demonstrate individual notability, Merge the rest to a season summary article. That way, past contributed content which doesn't meet notability expectations can be seen in the history of the redirected articles, and used appropriately to expand episode articles, should anyone desire to do so. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not gonna lie, i'm not exactly sure on the best way to format my response, but I feel like most of the episodes could easily (and justifiably) be merged with the season episode list (using a shortened version of the full summary for each episode). But I think the Season Finale ("The End's Not Near, It's Here") should be kept because it is "Notable" if not simply for the fact that it is the series finale of a show that was a huge cultural phenomenon. Also it has a fair amount of trivia and allusions to past episodes, which should be preserved in a place easy to find. Most of the other episodes in this season aren't really that informative for much other than a summary or a music list, but the finale one has enough other info on it that i believe it should be preserved for future visitors. Atotaldumass (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I bolded and italicized your votes for you, so it would be easier for admistrators to see and to result this discussion. You can revert if you want. --Gh87 (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as appropriate per Jclemens. It is important to preserve contribution history of all merged articles, therefore deletion is inappropriate. Polyamorph (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: The articles not listed above have been deleted per WP:PROD after seven days of proposal; therefore, I rebirthed them as redirects to The O.C. (season 4). Care free to recover previous versions, administrators, or just never do so? ~~--Gh87 (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)~~ Here's the link:[54]. --Gh87 (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all the above, without prejudice in the case of the finale. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 13 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penrhyn International[edit]

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

The company does not appear to meet the notability guideline at WP:CORP. Press releases and directories mentioning this firm abound, but I do not see any significant coverage in secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Directory listings and press releases do not establish notability, and even if they did, the article would still be about an executive search consultancy. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Article appears to have a few reliable third party sources. However, I don't believe there are enough sources to pass the notability guidelines for organizations. In addtion, the article is not written in a neutral point of view. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Originally closed as delete. Relisting so the article creator can have his say. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The deletes had a bit stronger argument based on my understanding of policy, but a legitimate argument can be made for the keep's interpretation notability, and given the not-unreasonable position I don't think I can find a rough consensus to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fading (song)[edit]

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

WP:NSONG states "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article"

The song barely charted and with that aside this article is not needed at all. All the information if covered under Loud (Rihanna album) and other singles sections. The background of this article is bloated with information the related to "Man Down" and, "Cheers" and "California King Bed" so that this can become a GA. This article is absolutely not needed, just because it charted does not mean that it gets a page. Every single reference is related to another article, there is not one reference directly relating to "Fading". - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Salted redirect Best Rihanna song but I agree with everything CK has written. Only the two final sentences of the 'Background' section are relevant to the song. Aside from the odd inevitable mention in album reviews and a very low UK charting, the song has not received any coverage in reliable sources. —Andrew_stalk 03:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason to delete this article. It's charted and has had a considerable amount of reviews. It is no different to "Raining Men (song)", which is of the same length roughly. "Barely charted" is not a reason to delete, it still charted, it doesn't matter where it charted. And it's not bloated with information with the background section. It tells of how Rihanna asked her fans which song they would like to become a single, it's just as relevant and important in this article as it is in Man Down and California King Bed. "Odd inevitable reviews" is also redundant, as that could be said for any song on Loud which didn't become a single. There is literally loads of info on Skin and Complicated, but it hasn't charted, so I can't create an article. All of the reviews relate to Fading, and the background section is about how it nearly became a single (it was actually the only one out of the four choices by Rihanna not to). No one seems to have a problem with Gaga, Mariah and Beyonce non-single articles being created which have barely charted, so this is no excuse. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 10:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. It's just a song that managed to chart in the top 200. Most of the background section has nothing to do with the song and there is no composition info. Pancake (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the Background info has nothing to do with it is basically saying that it has nothing to do with being on the Man Down and CKB articles either. And there is composition info, it's in the critical reception section as part of the reviews, didn't you read it? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said most of the background section. All of this might as well be removed: "Recording sessions for Loud began in February 2010,[4] and continued for six months, overlapping with her Last Girl on Earth Tour and filming during her debut feature film Battleship (2012).[5] [...]On March 12, 2011, it was confirmed that fans had selected "California King Bed" as the next single to be released from the album in the United States;[7] while internationally, it served as the fourth single, as it was announced.[8][9] In the United States, however, "Man Down" was sent for radio adds before "California King Bed".[10] And I can't find any composition info. Pancake (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that info has to do with Rihanna asking fans about the next single, and Fading was one of them, that constitutes as Background info, as it was shortlisted to become a single. And multiple reviewers talk about the songs genre, instrumental and lyrics in the Critical reception section, in fact, nearly every one does. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article may not be of a reasonable size (if for you reasonable is above 25Kb), but it has enough information to meet WP:GNG andWP:NSONGS. There are hundred of articles on Wikipedia about songs which do not deserve to be here. I do not believe "Fading" is one of them. Out of over 25 professional reviews Loud received, above 80% of them mention this song. It got significant coverage. The community is happy to have pages like this exist when there are reliable sources. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That about 20% of the album reviewers do not even mention this song seems more telling to me. AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough information to be covered outside the album page. Candy o32 21:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No need to delete a solid article and GA candidate. Toa Nidhiki05 22:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It charted in the UK, passes WP:NSONG. Plus it has enough coverage. My love is love (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - song has impacted a music chart, therefore it is notable. Shouldn't we be focusing on songs that has not impacted any charts and has an article on enWP? Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes the WP:GNG →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Excellent article, plus it passes WP:NSONG easily. Perhaps expand the composition section a bit? Regardless, if Radio (Beyoncé Knowles song), I Miss You (Beyoncé Knowles song) and Ave Maria (Beyoncé Knowles song) all pass WP:GNG and WP:NSONG, then why nominate this article when it offers the exact same? It's a double standard. As My love is love just said, shouldn't we be focused on songs that did not chart and don't pass WP:GNG at all? It seems quite a shame that instead of focusing on the many, many song articles that do not pass a single guideline, people are instead wasting everyone's time and energy nominating articles that clearly meet the guidelines.--mikomango mwa! 12:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is covered by reliable sources. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm voting in SUPPORT of this article and you're giving me grief? Um...WTF?--mikomango mwa! 18:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that wasn't for you lol, didn't realise I had written here, I thought I had written it in the paragraph below in response to AirCorn. It's hard to navigate in this text! Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing WP:NSONGs is irrelevant if the song is not significantly covered by reliable sources. No evidence has been given of this significant coverage here and the references in the article are about the album and only give passing mention to the song itself (usually just a sentence - sometimes in conjunction with another song). Needs to be shown to meet WP:GNG not just claimed.AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How else do you think there will be reviews? Just because the song is covered by reviews from the album, doesn't make the article any less notable or reliable. Plus, that point is dead because after all, all 90% of songs reviews are derived from the album reviews, I've written enough Rihanna articles to know. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 11:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that if the song is really notable there will be reviews written just about the song or it will at least receive more mention in the album reviews than I am seeing at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you can't expect that from a song that hasn't been released as a single. If you look at Peacock (song), the entire Critical reception section is made up from Teenage Dream reviews, and this is a song which peaked at #1 on the US Dance charts without any promotion or single release, so it shows that you don't need to have independent song reviews. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar at all with Peacock so I can't really comment on that. One of the cornerstones of notability (as I understand it) is that the item in question receives significant coverage in secondary sources. I am sorry but I am just not seeing that with the references provided. AIRcorn (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you become familiar and look at that section of Peacock, you will see that I have proved my point. And I don't see how they aren't significant secondary sources here, because there is. No different to Raining Men (song). Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All that would be proving is that WP:otherstuffexists. I am not going to go on a witch hunt for other Rihanna (or similar) songs to see if they meet my interpretation of the notability guidelines. However, I have looked through the sources given for this article and do not think it does. Show me some reliable, independent and significant coverage of this song and I would be happy for this to be kept. AIRcorn (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can get more reliable or independent or significant than NME, The New York Times, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly etc. They all specifically talk about this song. You don't want to look at those two examples because you don't want to see that I have proved you wrong. There are 9 reliable sources which talk about the song as well as it's composition. Why do people focus on deleting notable articles like this one instead of deleting the articles which have about 2 lines worth of info. People's priorities on here are so wrong. This is not a single, which as soon as it becomes one, gains 100% more coverage. This is just a song from Loud which a lot of people commented about, thus making it a notable song. It's just like any other 'song' article on Wikipedia on here which is notable. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to include critical opinion of a song in its article, which can be derived from album reviews, however these do not provide evidence for independent notability. Things like a music video, single release, award nominations and significant media coverage (which is usually secondary to these others) are what make a song notable. Will many people except those who own Loud have heard of this song? I don't think so. —Andrew_stalk 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But to be honest, you could say that for any singer on here. Will everyone know about Adele's non single articles who don't own 21? Will everyone know Beyonce's non single articles who don't own 4? Will everyone know Gaga's non single articles who don't Born This Way? if we had that attitude, none of these articles, which provide information to the reader, would ever get the light of day. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't matter much if Keeps are outnumbering, but this is (what I believe) the truth. The topic has received very little independant coverage, and the information looks mergeable to Loud too easily. The album reviews and single selection info especially. Plus, simply charting does not warrant a song article. CK's points are all valid as well. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nominator. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say that if this consensus is going to result in a delete, then I'd rather it be re-directed back to Loud, which how it was in the first place (I didn't create the article, I just wrote it), even though there is enough coverage and information with regard to background info, reviews, composition and live performances, with addition of charting. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 11:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Regardless of whether sources have talked about the song by itself or as part of reviews of the whole album, the fact is that numerous sources have deemed the song's importance worthy enough to highlight. Surely this coverage makes the song notable. And surely a certain amount of background information overlapping between the song's article and the album's article is acceptable. And fans of the singer who want to find out particular information about the song, including its composition, its particular background, its status as being shortlisted as a possible single, its critical reception, its live performances, etc. can find it all in this one article. I just think a song with this much coverage (including coverage in major publications such as Rolling Stone and The New York Times), as evidenced by the amount of information included in the article—very little of which, if any, is fluff—is notable. Moisejp (talk) 18:28, 11 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. causa sui (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Dolgoff[edit]

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

This is a puffy resume for a non-notable person--not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think she probably is notable as an author, but the article is so highly promotional that it would be best to start over. I also wonder about copyvio, as for any such smoothly written promotional article that does not clearly follow our usual style. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually that's a giveaway, yes. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete She and her book have gotten some coverage, but only one of the media references listed is actually ABOUT her (Chicago Tribune); the others are merely quoting her in articles about something else. Google Scholar finds no scholarly articles, so WP:ACADEMIC doesn't apply; her popular writing consists of one book and some Huffington Post columns. All in all she fails WP:GNG since I am not finding significant coverage about her in multiple reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity page. --Seduisant (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Only Fools and Horses characters. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Only Fools and Horses cast members[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic (per Wikipedia is not a directory). Redundant vis-à-vis List of Only Fools and Horses characters. – Ringbang (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to appropriate article(s): List of Only Fools and Horses characters, Only Fools and Horses. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Only Fools and Horses characters per Northamerica1000. The problem, however, is that the content is unsourced and so would first have to be sourced before being incorporated into the other article. In the meantime it could instead be added to Talk:List of Only Fools and Horses characters for discussion whilst at the same time making the page a redirect to the characters page (to preserve page history and hence author attribution).Polyamorph (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: A deletion notice was not affixed to the article before listing for deletion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 09:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Only Fools and Horses characters. Match-up between character and actor is clearly desirable. In practise I have no objection to User:Polyamorph's suggestion on how to do it. —WFC— 14:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will userfy on request. causa sui (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artifacts and gadgets from Warehouse 13[edit]

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

A long list of what basically are trivia, a huge collection of not-independently verified minutiae and imagined objects from a TV show. I don't want to use the c-word in public, but this is pretty crufty. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page provides relevant information for Warehouse 13. Since most of the individual episode pages have been removed, this list is extremely important because it gives reference materials for the objects on the show.

Keep. This Page is one of the main pages for Warehouse 13. The show is based on the items on this list. The objects are from the episodes, so I don't quite know what would be required to verify them. Many of the objects aren't made up, and even if there are ones that are fictional, it's a science fiction TV show. Put a disclaimer at the top of the page warning that the following isn't true, or find pages to cite. But don't delete the entire thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.127.65 (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands, it's primarily fancruft and duplicated, in large part, in the individual episode summaries where each artifact is mentioned. It would be an excellent article for a wikia of the show but it's not appropriate here. Millahnna (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy. I would like to copy this to my userpage until full citations can be found 129.63.69.91 (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to do so if the consensus is delete--but you'll need to register an account, since I'm not sure that IP user space can have subsections. Also, I don't think verification necessarily would make this a keeper, but that's just my opinion. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do have an account but sometimes I'm just plain lazy . . . The DarkArcher was here (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diffuse. Move the artifacts for each episode where they belong - to the episode page for each season. The artifacts for each episode belong in the infobox for that episode. We should make a new template specifically for this, and keep this page for the episode-less artifacts found at the bottom. 129.63.69.91 (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each episode doesn't need its own article (and therefore doesn't need its own infobox) but I agree that the information on the artifacts is better placed in the episode summaries. Millahnna (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to the episode page, but clarify that the show and artifact is fictional. Historical events and people are referenced in the show, prompting further research into history, and that is always a good thing.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the general notability guideline. Need independent reliable sources to establish notability of these gadgets. Nothing out there has the level of coverage necessary to support a proper article. Dzlife (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Alternatively, purge unreferenced items from the list. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diffuse the to the various listings on the episode listing as a consistent sub-section thereof. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any artifacts of real-world significance can be covered on episode or series page. If the concept of these artifacts as a whole has been subject of significant coverage, this can be integrated into series article or spun into a non-listy actual article. --EEMIV (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vikki Ziegler[edit]

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

Not a notable person: text does not indicate any notability, references are mostly youtube and the like. Largest part of article is an uncited list of appearances, which doesn't establish notability. JFHJr (㊟) 12:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've tidied a little, but the article should still be deleted. I removed some of the content that ran most clearly counter to WP:BLP (uncited statements), WP:BIO (self-published/unreliable sources), and WP:PEACOCK. I've also removed the youtube references, which are inappropriate, and whose cumulative effect was approaching WP:YOUTUBE as a bare heap of external links at the end. The only remaining reference is published by the subject's employer. JFHJr (㊟) 22:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - person of non-note - per WP:NN and WP:BLP. No references or cites except her own personal site at her law firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domenico.y (talk • contribs) 16:38, 3 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} 02:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – search results show only passing mention. All that I can find, in the most inclusive light, is that the subject is a divorce attorney and is a media commentator. JFHJr (㊟) 06:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - person of non-note - per WP:NN and WP:BLP. No references or cites except her own personal site at her law firm. Domenico.y (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockley's model[edit]

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

No apparent claim of Notability, no sources. Gbooks and Gscholar seem to give no related hits. (Although the last is hard to gauge due to lack of context.) T R 12:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of existence provided. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no evidence of Notability, and no Verifiability. Google search finds nothing. Does not seem to have any basis in science (could be typo for Shockley, but he's well covered already). Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete; notability is clearly not established in the article and a Google search is not showing up with anything to prove it exists. 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La Renaissance en Question[edit]

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

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

Two more articles about books by Lina Murr Nehme with no indication of meeting WP:Notability (books). Worldcat shows a single library holding of La Renaissance en Question, and has no entry for Du Règne de la Pègre au reveil du Lion. This looks increasingly like a spamming campaign: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les otages libanais dans les prisons syriennes, jusqu'à quand? and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara de Baalbek. JohnCD (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. AstroCog (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article or found elsewhere to indicate that this meets WP:NBOOK criteria. It (and the 2nd volume) are already covered on the page about their author. AllyD (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sican language[edit]

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

I can't verify that this exists. I suspect there may be an error in BBC magazine. If it really did last until the 20th century, we should be able to verify that with standard linguistic references. There seems to be nothing, at least not under this name. — kwami (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this just doesn't wash. Sources say the Sican culture died out in 1375 CE, and I can't find any references to its language except mirrors to the Wikipedia stub. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable. Angr (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no sources at Google Books or Google Scholar. Fails verifiability. Edison (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ingestrie[edit]

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

Not a notable fictional character. Does not play a very big role in Sweeney Todd and he is not even in the newer versions. The short story about him is not notable. Also this page is only two sentences long and has only one reference. JDDJS (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence to suggest that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline or that the article can be anything other than a summary-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent substantive treatment of this character in reliable sources. (And Aickman's story is definitely one of his weaker efforts.) Deor (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Goundar[edit]

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

Page on this subject has already been deleted three times (see log). Seduisant (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why do people insist on embarrassing themselves like this? Three times? EEng (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. Salt, too.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice resumé, but does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Where is there a record of the article having been previously AFD'd or deleted by other processes? What "log?" Edison (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous deletions were all speedy. You see that little "logs" link at the top of this AfD? The last one in the group of links that looks like "(edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those "logs" do not show the article as it appeared earlier. How can I see the three speedily deleted versions, to determine if they were different from the present version? Edison (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can't see them -- that's part of what deletion means. Anyway, it doesn't matter what the previous articles contained -- the question is whether the /subject/ is notable, which needs to be determined from external sources. If the earlier versions had pointed to notability-lending sources, then those earlier versions wouldn't (well, shouldn't) have been deleted. And if no one can pointed to sources verifying notability now, then the article will have to be deleted again. EEng (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons, this person should be on Wikipedia are:

1. Sam Goundar’s research has been published in United Nation’s publications, IEEE Journals [highest ranked IT journal], and other refereed journals and publications.

2. Sam Goundar has been selected as an Emerging Leader of the Digital World and was invited to be a panellist for the m-Education conference.

3. Sam Goundar has an IEEE publication and has been the President of the South Pacific Computer Society.

4. Sam Goundar has been conducting research at The University of the South Pacific, The University of Fiji, Bay of Plenty Polytechnic and for the Attorney General of Fiji.

5. Sam Goundar has been the President of the South Pacific Computer Society

6. Sam Goundar has reviewed and edited research papers for acceptance at DEIT 2011 Conference

does the above points not meet the wikipedia criteria for a person to in it--203.167.215.130 (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not! Wikipedia is not a compilation of resumés of persons someone should hire. It is based on reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Perhaps you have confused us with LinkedIn or Monster.com. Wikipedia is not an employment service. Edison (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Accomplishments are not sufficient. There must be significant coverage by reliable sources which there is not. --Kvng (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've numbered the points above.

1. Being published does not make an author notable

2. Being selected as an "Emerging Leader" and being a panelist at a conference doesn't make one notable

3. Being published by IEEE doesn't make one notable

4. Conducting research, no matter where, does not make someone notable

5. Being president of a minor (sorry) computer society doesn't make someone notable

6. Reviewing and editing research papers doesn't make someone notable

Nor do all of the above taken together make someone notable. Closing admin, please salt. EEng (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like nothing but a resume. I suggest salt if this ends with deletion. →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. What the article calls publications seem mostly to be in obscure venues or conference presentations. There's not a single paper in WoS, much less any citations. None of the other criteria in WP:PROF are satisfied either. Article has many hallmarks of a vanity page and is nothing more than a CV. This is an uncontroversial delete and I think the salt recommendation made by several commentators is advisable, given the history. Agricola44 (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and salt as above. No cites anywhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

What are you guys talking about? Stop behaving like you own Wikipedia ... look at the guidelines:

You are contravening Wikipedia's guidelines ... a person satisfying just one of the guidelines listed below is good enough ...

Wikipedia’s Notability Requirements for Academics [from Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)]

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

YES: Sam Goundar’s research has been published in United Nation’s publications, IEEE Journals [highest ranked IT journal], and other refereed journals and publications. ISBN: 978-1-4244-8581-9/11 ©2011 IEEE – March 2011

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

YES: Sam Goundar has been selected as an Emerging Leader of the Digital World and was invited to be a panellist for the m-Education conference. [55]

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

YES: Sam Goundar has been conducting research at The University of the South Pacific, The University of Fiji, Bay of Plenty Polytechnic and for the Attorney General of Fiji ...

5. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

YES: Sam Goundar has been the President of the South Pacific Computer Society http://www.thespacs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=86

6. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

YES: Sam Goundar has reviewed and edited research papers for acceptance at DEIT 2011 Conference

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.96.67.129 (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — 27.96.67.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(I've reformatted your list to make it more readable.) Your evidence doesn't match what the guidelines say. For example, publication by IEEE or UN is not significanct scholarly impact, "Emerging Leader" is not a highly prestigious award, the South Pacific Computer Society is not (correct me if I'm wrong) a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society, reviewing and editing papers is not being an editor-in-chief, and so on. Mr. G sounds like a smart guy who's done a lot for the people around him, but that's not enough to be considered notable on Wikipedia.

EEng (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. The anon (whose IP geolocates to Goundar's own institution) seems to have a basic misunderstanding of notability guidelines. This is starting to look more like a promotion/vanity effort. Agricola44 (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I had resisted the urge to geolocate, but since Agricola went ahead and did it, I followed up. This is, indeed, pretty clearly a vanity page by the subject himself -- compare the deletion log [56] to User talk:Sam.Goundar and the activities of certain other SPAs (though not all clearly G himself): Special:Contributions/Amit.ashok.kamble Special:Contributions/Amyth91 Special:Contributions/27.96.67.129.

To put the finishing touches on why G is indeed not notable, consider his own webpost [57] from 2007, in which he states his intention to "revive and take over as President of the South Pacific Computer Society, a local IT Professional’s organisation that has somewhat become defunct..." So much for S.P.C.S being prestigious scholarly society or whatever. Now stop wasting our time.

EEng (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Don't forget to delete the photo too. [58]

Delete - lacks significant coverage about teh subject, and despite protestations otherwise, the subject does not meet any of the guidelines for an academic. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

António Pedro Nobre[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this man of many talents under WP:GNG, WP:ENT, or WP:AUTHOR. However, language difficulties/name variations might possibly be in issue, additional sources welcomed, as always. Certainly exists, a couple of the videos themselves are around, etc. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Denenberg[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. There are some sources but nothing that isn't trivial. ~T P W 15:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of any notability beyond being a rank-and-file member of a county legislature. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - unless you want to count this misdemeanor conviction, which I suspect he would rather we didn't mention, or this story about how he has just been gerrymandered out of his district. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 11 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 Page has been speedily deleted.. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Reachert[edit]

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

contested prod. this may be an attack page. Jeff Reachert doesnt show up on google except for facebook, myspace etc and "Military Change for Life" has 0 ghits. The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP with potentially controversial information, very few ghits for this name--nothing close to what we'd need for an article. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as likely attack page or hoax (and I have tagged the page for speedy deletion). The only source cited is a Facebook page (an unreliable source) which doesn't support any of the claims in this article anyway, much less the controversial ones. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have speedied per above. Whether an attack page or not, claims such as this about a presumably living person need highly reliable sourcing to be present from the start, i.e., we do not await finding sources to decide whether to delete.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. But consensus is also to rename and rewrite to cover the group rather than its founder. Sandstein 11:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tapani Koivuniemi[edit]

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

Tapani Koivuniemi runs a small publishing company and is certainly not notable for that (the publishing company itself does not have an article). This article purports to be about Koivuniemi, but mainly serves as a WP:COATRACK for material about a "cult" that Koivuniemi allegedly founded. That organisation is not notable either - it has a few dozen members, it doesn't have its own article on Wikipedia, it appears to be almost completely unremarkable (female members dress in feminine attire? seriously?) There has been a complaint about the content of the article at WP:BLPN. Wikipedia should not host material of this nature about living people. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but probably rename. We should almost certainly have an article about the cult itself. It has extensive coverage across literally dozens of reliable sources. I could go either way on the guy himself, but if anything the existing article should probably be renamed to be about the organization and not him, since you are right that it is mostly about the organization currently. Kevin (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep! As the contributor who first coined this article I am certainly in favour of NOT deleating it. There already exists a Finnish site, titled "Tapani Koivuniemen uskonlahko" - literally "The Tapani Koivuniemi Cult". This, I agree, could be an alternative title for the page. It is true to say that Koivuniemi is not notable for running a "small publishing company" - but the point, brought out in the article, is that the company is a "front" and money-making operation for the members of the cult. Demiurge1000 has missed the gravity of the story. "That organisation is not notable either". Where? This has been a huge story in the country where it took place - Finland - and widely reported. And again Demiurge1000 addds: "it appears to be almost completely unremarkable (female members dress in feminine attire? seriously?)." Yes, seriously! The reason the story of the cult first emerged was due to the increasingly strange demands that Koivuniemi was placing on the women; mouth-to-mouth kissing, introducing weight-loss programs (even for pregnant women), wearing "sexy" clothes. In a egaliatarian country such as Finland with a high proportion of women in high social places, this was reported in the papers as "hugely reactionary". So, in summation: CERTAINLY RETAIN THE PAGE, though perhaps rename it as The Tapani Koivunimei cult.TTKK (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I am unable to find anything useful to establish notability in English.Jarhed (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles don't need sources in English. Quoting the GNG: "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. " Kevin (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth. To repeat, I am unable to find anything, in English, that is useful to establish notability here on this English Wikipedia. That being the case, I am going to hold BLP rules as paramount and vote to delete this article as a possible BLP violation for a non-notable individual.Jarhed (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename (add 'Cult') per Kevin and TTKK - it is the cult that is notable (seems to have been quite a stir in Finland), and it is the subject of this article. (Demiurge, it's a coatrack only in the sense of being mis-titled, not of being biased.) The sources are already sufficient, I think, but a Finnish speaker could readily provide translations of sample quotes as further evidence and illustration. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. As its all about the group (who don't appear to be notable) I think the article should be moved away from a BLP title in the near future. 14:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- How on earth does major coverage in multiple national Finnish media outlets constitute 'not notable'? I can see arguing about the guy himself - and I agree with you that we would be better off renaming the article - but how can you say the group is non-notable? Kevin (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats my opinion/interpretation od guidelines from my investigations - I don't give a damn if its kept or deleted or if you and others disagree with me. Minor group - perhaps the best thing would be an article about the tv show. Groups been in existence for like twenty years - google search results reveal little - the Finnish article uses citation and support standard that appear clearly imo below our own. The finish article hasn't even been edited in almost a year so it not like is a hot topic is it? - Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to go back and forth on AfD's too much like this, but am making an exception because I'm just seriously confused. The finnish wikipedia article does not matter - the fact that this group has received coverage in half a dozen major media outlets does. A quick google shows coverage in: YLE, helsingin sanomat, MTV3, ilta-sanomat (which is tabloidy,) mediuutiset, talouselämä, etc. Some of those aren't the best sources ever, but all of them should meet WP:RS, and helsingin sanomat and YLE are really high quality. How does a group with that much coverage not meet the GNG? (I don't mean that as a rhetorical question - I'm really curious why you think a group with that much coverage doesn't meet the gng.) Kevin (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My search revealed little notability. If your making a case for notability vague comments like they are in this and this and that are imo worthless assertions of notability unless you present diffs for investigation or even better add then to the article - that is something that impresses me. YLE TV did a docu/programe about them so perhaps that program is notable. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability guidelines do not require sources to be in the article - they require sources to exist. Some of the Helsingin Sanomat sources are in the article already. The rest of the sources I mentioned are pretty easily googleable. I just linked you four RS'es in addition to the helsingin sanomat and YLE sources already mentioned in the article. Please explain how the six sources now explicitly brought up in this discussion fail to reach the level of coverage required by the GNG. Really, even without the other sources, two indepth articles in Helsingin Sanomat and a documentary produced by YLE are far more than is usually considered necessary to meet the GNG. Kevin (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, but, this is notable based on Finnish resources. While perhaps not notable in the English world he is notable in Finland. This Wikipedia article, if worked on by those who can translate Finnish, can make this the most important English resource about Koivuniemi, and that's a very powerful thing!SarahStierch (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Repeated assertions are being made in this discussion that the foreign sources are reliable, and also that there is no need for them to be in English. I dispute that assertion. WP source guidelines require the availability of English translations, not the mere say-so of someone claiming fluency in the non-English language. Not stated anywhere, but implied by BLP policy, is that non-English sources must be evaluatable for reliability. With absolutely *no* English reliable sources to go on, such evaluation is virtually impossible. My preference is for all assertions about the reliability of non-English sources to stop immediately as plain POV, and for this deletion to go forward on the basis of English-only sources or direct translations with an accompanying and verifiable description of source reliability.Jarhed (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOENG states "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.[6]", so it seems that Finnish is not forbidden. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think sourcing guidelines require the availability of English language sources, please quote them. (You won't be able to quote them, though: WP:GNG, WP:V, and every other policy we have dealing with it explicitly state that non-English sources are 100% acceptable.) Sources have to exist - sources don't have to exist in a place or in a language that you will be able to personally easily evaluate. It's not any different to state that Helsingin Sanomat is a reliable source than it is to state that the NYT is a reliable source. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that it's inappropriate for other people to talk about a foreign language source just because you don't speak the language that it's in.

I'm more than happy to provide translations of any part anyone particularly questions... but not here. That would be a content cleanup issue, which is not something to be handled at AfD. Kevin (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are at an impasse then, because if you think that BLP policy allows you to call someone a cult leader without impeccable and verifiable sources, you are misreading it.Jarhed (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is easier than that: if we rename the article as being about what is apparently a cult, not about the person, then the sources are quite sufficient. If it's any help, Helsingin Sanomat (for instance) is roughly equivalent to the Financial Times, a most respected source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its some kind of Christian sect isn't it. If you want to move it I don't think we should put "cult" in the title. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The organisation appears to be commonly referred to as Monday circle (or Monday Circle?) Maanantaipiiri could also be created as a redirect to it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words used to describe them in some sources can definitely be fairly translated as cult. Since cult is an awfully loaded word in English, I wouldn't see a large problem with putting (sect) in the title instead of (cult), though - and it would also be backed up well enough by the sources to be justified. Maanantaipiiri and maitobaari are both sometimes used to refer to it, but both properly only refer to a segment of it. They should probably both be created as redirects to whatever title we end up using. Kevin (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There are impeccable and verifiable sources. It doesn't matter if you can personally verify the source easily - if we were required to use sources that everyone could easily verify, then we couldn't use articles from journals or newspapers that are behind paywalls, or sources that weren't full-text available for free online, etc. For that matter, I'm not sure we'd even be able to use sources with big english words in them - what if someone didn't understand them? Helsingin Sanomat is an internationally recognized newspaper, and YLE is Finland's national broadcaster. You can easily confirm - even if you don't speak a word of Finnish - that HS has had multiple articles about this group, and that YLE has made a documentary about them. That clearly meets the threshold for notability established by the GNG (and remember, AFD is about notability, not content.) There is nothing in WP:BLP that suggests that it's unacceptable to have an article on a topic because you cannot personally understand the sources used. Although AfD shouldn't be about content cleanup - just notability, which is firmly established by the things you can verify - I also feel the need to point out that you've had two Wikipedians who speak Finnish who have both been here quite a while tell you that the content of the article is well supported by the included sources. Kevin (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I am here is because of the "cult" BLP issue which I had hoped would be completely handled by the delete. If this article is not going to be deleted, then my BLP concerns still stand. I agree with you that I can be satisfied by the Finnish speaking editors on this article that BLP concerns are taken care of. However, any such agreement that we reach can be completely undone in my mind by an editor who tells me that my BLP concerns don't matter.Jarhed (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns *don't* matter at an AfD. AfD is about notability, not content cleanup. A notable subject whose article has BLP concerns can be addressed through normal editing. BLP concerns are important and should be addressed, but this is not the proper venue to address them. Kevin (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming good faith and I am presuming in advance that we can work together to address the BLP concerns of naming somebody a cult leader. However, I would like you to step back from your viewpoint from just a minute, and consider how it might look from my vantage point. I am absolutely not accusing you of this, but people who push for cult articles tend to be kind of eccentric. They also tend to be insistent on their viewpoint. Again, I am not saying this of you, but I want you to at least try to show some understanding of my viewpoint. Naming somebody a cult leader bothers me and any reasonable person would want impeccable sources for such a charge. Creating an article about a cult is a highly charged issue, and I would caution anybody to be careful and contentious doing it. At any rate, I reiterate my delete vote and I am stepping away from this article until it is closed.Jarhed (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why BLP issues are concerning; half the stuff I do on ENWP is related to BLP issues. But you can't just scream BLP as a generic trump card. You might have some point if I were a brand new editor, or if I was not citing sources. Neither of those things are the case - I'm an established user well-familiar with BLP policies making arguments based on Wikipedia policy citing literally half a dozen reliable sources. Helsingin Sanomat is literally used as a source in over a thousand articles on ENWP already. I can understand your desire to disengage - this kind of thing isn't exactly fun - and I really do try to avoid going back and forth on AfD's like this generally, but this has just been bizarre. It's absolutely flabbergasting to me that anyone would argue that multiple lengthy articles in the premier media outlets of Scandinavia and a documentary on finland's national broadcaster are not sufficient to establish notability. Kevin (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When we name an article even if some people think they are a cult and label them as such we don't put such and such a cult or such and such a sect in the title we put the name of the group. I am still a delete , nothing I have seen or heard leads me to agree that this group should have an en wikipedia article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how extensive coverage of this group in the six reliable sources directly mentioned so far does not pass the threshold established by the WP:GNG. Yes, this is a literal request. Kevin (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. A notable topic backed by reliable sources. Being written for readers of English, en:wiki prefers English language sources if they are available; but that is not a requirement and no rule lists it as such. Which is a Good Thing: we readers of English need educating outside the box sometimes :) Andrew Dalby 08:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to focus article on the group rather than the founder. The sourcing noted above certainly meets and in fact exceeds the coverage that normally is found acceptable at AFD. Any BLP issues are can be handled through editting. Negative comments obviously need to be well-sourced, but BLP does not mean that biographies of living people may only contain positive material. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:COATRACK. If the cult is notable it needs to be build well-sourced from the ground up to avoid saying things like this about living people. Note that most BLP policies apply to everything said about living people, both in biographies and in general articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. I would do it now if I could read the sources, but I cannot. I came to close this AFD, and would have done so as a "keep" just based on the discussion. However, on reading the article, I agree that its flaws are more substantial than a simple move to a new title can address. I am satisfied that the group is notable, and that neutral article on that group is desirable, but this article needs more than a quick fix.Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the next day or two, I'll go over the article, rewrite it to be about the group, take out anything that is an obvious problem, and take out anything that definitely is not supported by a source. I won't have time to do a complete rewrite for a while beyond that, though. 05:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through the article a little bit. I reworded things that are obviously problems, like cult -> sect. I commented out a couple potentially really contentious things until I can provide inline citation for them. Everything that remains in the article is well supported by the HS articles used as sources. I will move and rewrite the article in a more serious way at some point to make it more appropriately about the group, but its current form no longer has BLP violations in it. (It may be the middle of next weekish before I both have the time and am on a network with easy access to all the sources.) Kevin (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The sect seems to be verifiably notable and it shouldn't be difficult for someone who speaks the language to rewrite this. The BLP issues are concerning to an extent but not a reason for outright deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:33, 14 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 Jannali, New South Wales#Education. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jannali East Public[edit]

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

The primary school is not relatively notable (compared to other primary schools, and other schools generally); after removing mentions of student names, there is extremely sparse encyclopedic content included in the article. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I have removed mention of student names per WP:WPSCH/AG.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jannali, New South Wales#Education per other Australian primary schools. TerriersFan (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Jannali East Public School is the proper name for the school and that (Jannali East Public School) is already redirected to Jannali, New South Wales. This should be a plain delete. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirects are simply search terms and there is no need for them to represent the full name. We should make things as easy as possible for readers. FYI if this page is redirected then you can discuss it at WP:RFD. TerriersFan (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don;t know about elsewhere, but around where I live, the word "school" is often left out when referring to institutions. Referring to the school as "Jannali East Public" would not be out of place, and as such, a redirect is appropriate. And redirects are cheap. - Whpq (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Why not? Redirects are simple. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jannali East Public should not of been deleted. The school deserves it's own page and the peoples whos names were mentioned obviously deserved to be mentioned. If you have a differnent oppion please post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathpmc (talk • contribs) 09:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly OddParents (season 9)[edit]

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

There is NO DEAL for a ninth season of Fairly OddParents. Ring2011 (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would prefer a speedy delete as patent nonsense but that was declined, although it is true because of very poor quality "plot summaries" sourced from the original editor's head and now actually being added onto by IP editors. Nate • (chatter) 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wabbit season! No, emu season! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wabbitemu[edit]

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

Non-notable software - Google search only bringing up forums, download sites, etc.nothing to indicate notability Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Google result is the official project on CodePlex. Wabbitemu is the most popular emulator for TI z80 calculator development like TiEmu is for TI 68k. - Camdenmil (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Leigh[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Leigh was one of the artists interviewed by Ruud Janssen for the book Mail-Interviews - Part 1. He is also mentioned in the book Eternal network: a mail art anthology, University of Calgary Press, 1995, p. 259, ISBN 9781895176278. However, it is just a passing mention, as well as this article published by Tate Etc. That's all I found and I don't think it is enough to meet our notability standards. Weak delete. I'm willing to change my opinion if someone presents a better evidence of notability. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dowayne Davis[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE, couldn't find much sources other than routine game coverage, interviews about other players, and a couple of articles in the University newspaper, that covers Davis Delete Secret ^account 00:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ not seeing a noteworthy college career and appears to not be playing professionally. Will change my position if additional information is introduced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I stand corrected (as is usual)--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a number of sources to the article. College football players qualify under WP:GNG if they have had non-trivial coverage (i.e., not just stat lines or passing references in game coverage) in mainstream media outlets. In this case, Davis has received such coverage not only in the university newspaper (Daily Orange), but has also been the subject of extensive press coverage in major metropolitan daily newspapers such as The Post-Standard (94th largest circulation paper in the US) and Newsday (16th largest circulation paper in the US). He was also honored in 2008 by the Central New York Chapter of the National Football Foundation as the Scholar Athlete of the Year. Looks sufficient to pass the GNG bar in my opinion. Cbl62 (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see any claim of notability other than him playing football, nor any sources that aren't the local sources that almost every Division I starter gets from their local newspaper. Secret ^account 16:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- His notability is as a football player, so there shouldn't be a need to show notability for other things. As for the level of coverage, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is what is required by WP:GNG. While I might agree that coverage limited to a small hometown newspaper needs to be assessed more carefully, we're dealing here with in-depth coverage in major metropolitan newspapers. As for the suggestion that almost every Division I starter gets this level of coverage, not so. I regularly monitor college football AfDs, and most players (even starters) do not get this type of coverage. Starting QBs typically do, but it's rarer for defensive players to get this type of coverage. IMO there's enough here to pass the test. Cbl62 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage of the games he played in is probably sufficient for most information about an athlete. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm pretty sure the general standard is, if they haven't played at the professional level, they're not 'automatically' notable - and, aside from being from Jamaica, I don't really see much of anything indicating he's more notable than many other Division I (or whatever they're calling it now) atheletes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 12 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 90000 (number). (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

99999[edit]

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

My PROD reason was "The first entry [ 90000 (number) ] might be worthy of a redirect, but the Feynman point, logically, should be pointed to by 999999. I don't think it would be worth keeping as a redirect to 90000 (number). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please move it to 999999. I can't, since it's on the "black list". --Berntisso (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in the 90000 (number) page, so it is a suitable redirect unless another target exists. 999999 can be created separately as a redirect to Feynman point. Peter E. James (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
999999 (number) redirects to 100000 (number) - both "999999" redirects should point to the same target. Peter E. James (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have redirected 999999 to 100000 (number). I don't think it should redirect to Feynman point, since that is not the most interesting thing about this number, let alone the only thing. I added to the article the fact that the divisibility of this number by 7 and by 13 accounts for the fact that rational numbers with those denominators, when expressed in decimal form, have 6-digit repetends. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge into 90000 (number) because it is already mentioned in that article. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge per RJH, and to save the article history. For the record, I deprodded this article because I thought that a complete deletion might be controversial. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 90000 per RJH. Polyamorph (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Cosmetics[edit]

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

This article's topic is a fictional cosmetics company of the near-ending series All My Children. The fact that the show is cancelling encouraged me to create this discussion. It is possible to insert true perspectives and lessen the in-universes. However, I wonder if our time to edit this article is time-consuming. To be honest, this article has potential, but it appeared to be a resemblance of a fan dedication to the show and the long-time character Erica Kane. The page has a history log; if deleted as voted, then history log will be inaccessible. Therefore, no reverts or revivals without further third-party publications. The primary sources are of ABC. ~~Gh87 (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)~~ Just one "neutral" and one "delete"? Take my delete, and one becomes two. --Gh87 (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. Since some of these products were sold in real-life stores, I think there is some notability here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no evidence to suggest that the fictional cosmetics or the real cosmetics meet the general notability guideline. Even if the real world cosmetics exist, it does not mean that they are notable. Notability requires verifiable evidence and I see nothing of the sort even with a search engine test. Jfgslo (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even with a search test? You say even as if search tests were some kind of guarantee. Here is what the page you link to has to say about them:

"Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none" Weakopedia (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clearly meets WP:AUTH, and policy-based consensus to delete. I further note that this BLP seems to be a bit contentious, so I have taken the liberty of semi protecting the page; that action is independant of the close here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Allen Butler[edit]

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

By all means delete it! Danielallenbutler (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[The comment that appeared here has been deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Absolutely, 100% correct! Couldn't have put it better myself! Danielallenbutler (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy procedural keep. I don't believe the author is notable, but this AfD was opened wholly outside procedure and has no nomination rationaile beyond the fact the apparent subject of it and editor has decided he doesn't like it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a rationale in WP:SK? causa sui (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a strong case that this falls under SK criterion 2. Lagrange 613 17:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The delete !vote by Stuartyeates seems to rule out #2. The thing about speedy keeps is that it only works if nobody thinks the discussion is worthwhile. causa sui (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The infighting among Titanic buffs is beside the point. His book "Unsinkable:The Full Story" was a New York Times bestseller. This Washington Post item is behind a paywall but seems to describe "Unsinkable" as "the best narrative" of the Titanic story. Another book, "The Other Side of the Night", is the subject of a news report here. All of this is quite enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. (Did anyone even look?) --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 11 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Feeney[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:PERP, my intuition suggests deletion, but another alternative would be a redirect to Gerry_Kelly#Old_Bailey_attack or perhaps elsewhere. I didn't immediately see other coverage of that particular event save at those of the other PERPs involved. I haven't nominated the other folks in that bombing, who have more additional content, but someone more familiar with our standards on PERPs might want to check out the Marian Price and Dolours Price articles as well as Gerry, all of whom seem to at least have other events associated with their biographies. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—i don't have an opinion on this yet, but i did add a little bit of stuff to the article. he was also involved in a hunger strike (as were the price sisters), and there was an interesting incident involving an art theft and ransom attempt. anyway, it's there in the article and i'll keep thinking about what i think.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—i think i've put this article into a reasonable enough shape so that it's clear that it's notable. i can't quite find sources for the actual car bombing, but there are enough for the rest of it that i think it passes the gng. there is some more material i've found relating to feeney's activities with sinn fein after his release from the maze that i will be adding, along with info about the kidnapping of lord donoughmore and his wife in 1974 by the ira in an attempt to trade them for feeney and the others.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As leader of a terrorist cell which carried out major attacks, he does seem to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Feeney led the IRA gang responsible for two car bombings in London in 1973 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/14/newsid_4724000/4724181.stm). These were among the earliest attacks in the 'troubles' and they shocked the English public by being in the capital city. The trial in Winchester was a first too, with extreme security precautions. Feeney and the other ringleaders then went on hunger strike, which caused enormous media interest. Yes, Feeney is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SeaTwirl[edit]

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

This product does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. The single GNews hit is a blog, and I do not see significant coverage in secondary sources elsewhere on the web. The article was previously deleted via a PROD for notability reasons. VQuakr (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prototype testing version, no evidence of notability. None of the sources is independent. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aforementioned notability issues.--E8 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've rewritten the article to make notability clearer as well as to provide more information on what makes the design distinctive. I found several sources using the Kvasir search engine (although I left out the spectrum.ieee blog entry and several derivative articles), and the article already cited one good independent source, the CleanEnergy one. There are now more references, and at least half are independent (more than half if Chambers University counts as independent, as I think it does). It would be nice to have some news hits, but in my estimation it now meets the standard of coverage for notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Ample coverage in Sweden. Dream Focus 18:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources found proving adequate coverages. Dream Focus 18:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the rescue effort has succeeded, nice work there, Yngvadottir! Interesting sources in Swedish ;) too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources. Excellent rescuing! →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dipankar Vidyapith[edit]

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

There is just no real claim to notability on here, and there are certainly no outside sources giving us one. WP:GNG Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 00:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing in gnews, nor could I find any reliable sources in google. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vancouver Public Schools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson Middle School (Vancouver, Washington)[edit]

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

A typical middle school. Found no sources at Google Books or Google News archive with significant coverage, needed to satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability standard. Edison (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2011 (TC)

Redirect to Vancouver Public Schools per established consensus. There is nothing uniquely notable about this particular middle school, as far as I can see. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge per User:Cullen328. School in itself is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nothing special about the school that makes it notable. →Σ ⚑ ☭ 07:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Registry of America[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources under this or previous name (note that searches for "US Kennel Club" find many incorrect references or headlines that actually are for "American Kennel Club"). ^Bongo_matic 06:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find little in the way of coverage about the dog registration organisation. As "Dog Registry of America", I found this book which would seem to indicate that they are in the business of handing out registration papers willy nilly. A diploma mill for dog if you will. As "US Kennel Club", I could find no coverage that was about them as opposed to it actually referring to the American Kennel Club. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any notable third-party sources, the closest that came to being non-COI was this small mention. It wouldn't be of any help for an encyclopedia though. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion far outweigh the sole reason for retention here. –MuZemike 22:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Challenge 2005 Xplosion X[edit]

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

clearly fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and no long standing notability to meet WP:EVENT. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant third party coverage years after the event to show longstanding notability. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero independent sources to establish lasting notability. Run-of-the-mill sporting event.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A historically significant event held by the biggest promotion in the world. Features a World title fight, as well as world class and world champion fighters in other bouts. - Minowafan (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please back your claim by providing sources to demonstrate historical significane as per WP:PERSISTENCE. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Intego. Little worth merging, but founde rof a notable company is plausable enough to leave as a redirect after what there is is merged in. Courcelles 13:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Marteau[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of Jingova (talk · contribs), who completed steps 1 and 3 of the AfD process. I assume the rationale is along the lines of failing notability criteria. I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Intego, the company he co-founded. --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mashiyu Entertainment[edit]

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

I could not find a reliable source providing coverage of the subject. Delete per WP:GNG. Author contested WP:PROD. Odie5533 (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 27 September 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) 23:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has produced at least one game that I could check. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - having produced a game does not establish notability unless that game has received significant coverage in reliable sources.Dialectric (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources (just PR site and company pages); created by an SPA as likely spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 08:26, 2 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. absolutely nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; lack of reliable sources. Seems very promotional. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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