Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 25

< 24 September	26 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death in Venice (cocktail)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable drink, no reliable independent references, fails WP:NOTRECIPE, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WWGB. No notability asserted in the article and the only reference is self-referential. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources. This sounds like a regular martini with the addition of strawberry aquavit, which itself seems of doubtful notability, this being pretty much the only reference I can find which doesn't mention the doubtful cocktail. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely not notable. Author's pet page.Curb Chain (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Beer Party[edit]

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

Non-notable political party. This is a political party which only ever fielded one candidate, who only received 200 votes out of an electorate of at least 5,000. As far as I can tell, it never received significant coverage in reliable sources; the only coverage I can find is trivial (e.g. [1]). This article was previously nominated for deletion back in 2005 and kept, on the dubious grounds that all political parties that have ever existed are automatically notable. If that was ever policy, I don't believe it is any more. Robofish (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm in favor of keeping all political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders if their existence can be verified on general principles. I'm an ultra-inclusionist here, in other words. This page isn't something that should be here. Joke party. 01:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—but reluctantly. there is this as well, but sadly, it doesn't seem like enough. i would prefer that there was enough to keep it, but there seems not to be.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An embarrassment that we've been saddled with thanks to editors who insisted that it is the duty of Wikipedia to preserve every precious barnacle of random trivia that the world collects as it flies through time and space. No sources, no nothing. Merge this some place and be done with it if we must save it. Gamaliel (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting to see how Wikipedia stood back in 2005, and that it was felt that "There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion." It was felt that if something existed, that was good enough for inclusion. Well, there is evidence that this party existed, but there is no evidence for its notability, and the consensus these days is that a topic must be notable to justify a standalone article. When writing a history of Prince Edward Island, one would be selective and include only important information. This is not important enough to mention. As there are a number of beer parties who have stood for election, perhaps somebody some day will write an article on them, and this party will be mentioned in passing. Even then it wouldn't be notable enough for a standalone article as there doesn't seem to be much to say about it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political parties in Prince Edward Island#Historical parties. The PDF currently serving as the sole source for the article can be provided as a reference for the party's former existence. Angr (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of political parties in Norway. Tone 16:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Unity Party[edit]

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

Non-notable political party. While I'm sure many people like the idea of it, this party only received 65 votes in the only election they contested, or 0.07% of the votes in that county. It doesn't seem to have received any attention from reliable independent sources, even looking for Norwegian-language ones, and the versions of the article in other language Wikipedias don't provide any additional evidence of notability. Robofish (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Joke "party." Carrite (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

slette—no indication of notability, either in english or in norwegian. heck, look at the revision history on the norse wikipedia and see how many times it's been templated there as uencyklopedisk.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I prodded this back in 2007; I'm surprised that it's still here. It's bordering on A7. Research turns up nothing except a spate of self-listings on various website in 2005. No reliable independent commentary can be easily found, though at this stage there are lots of Wikipedia mirrors. The party is likely to have existed, but appears to have been formed just for that election, and gained just 65 votes. Not enough to establish notability. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the joke didn't catch on and nobody cared. Geschichte (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm from Milwaukee, and even I agree that this is not a notable topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

now that is a supervote. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milwakuee's Worst! =P - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties in Norway; the party did exist, it seems, even if only as a gag, so should redirect there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of political parties in Norway. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bodyguard (2012 film)[edit]

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

Prod denied. The film has not begun production and has not had significant coverage so by WP:NFF, it is WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article. BOVINEBOY2008 22:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now per WP:NFF —Mike Allen 06:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable film, unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 10:06, 1 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. Not notable. Krakatoa Katie 04:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Mbiuki[edit]

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

Unremarkable person - only real claim of notability is being the brother of someone notable, and owning a business. Google search on "Ken Mbiuki" shows only 31 unique results - mostly social media links or passing mentions. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Deletion The sources for the article indicate that the article's subject merits importance all on his own. Mr. Ken Mbiuki's interview in a national Kenyan newspaper attaches some import to the article about him.Thuralt (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable businessman. The one rather minor piece of coverage in a newspaper does not establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject's claim of importance has been rather understated above, as he is the founder of an accredited degree-level college. Here's another source with some coverage. The best solution would seem to me to be to create an article about Zetech College, which would cover Mbiuki's role, and to redirect this title there. I'll try to get around to creating that article before the conclusion of this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know whether there have been earnest efforts to research the article as there seems to be more verifiable sources such as this Daily Nation article from which the source quoted by Phil Bridger seems to have been derived. It is another national newspaper article about Ken Mbiuki and his business, Zetech college. I fail to see how two different national newspaper articles about the same individual could possibly be deemed as "minor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuralt (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because those are only two sources so far that mention anything about Mbiuki at all. They do not assert nor imply any particular significance to his achievements or person. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mbiuki's only claim to notability so far appears to be the foundership of a potentially notable institution (Zetech College), which also appears to have received more coverage than the founder himself. WP:BLP1E and WP:AFDP#Businesspeople both support this interpretation. If Zetech College is proven notable, that could in turn support Mbiuki's notability as the institution's founder. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out there are more than two sources that mention the subject: the allafrica and in2eastafrica articles, which, though, are derivations of the article's second source. This, essentially, proves notability as it seems Mbiuki has generated enough interest for his article to be duplicated twice on different websites.

Additionally, the only reason an individual would merit two national newspaper articles about himself and his business is because the individual is notable.Thuralt (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Mbiuki that is their subject, but rather Zetech College itself. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned external links, though about Zetech College, extensively mention the subject of the article, Ken Mbiuki. This compounded by the sources for the article, I imagine, adequately challenges the claim of obscurity brought against Mr. Mbiuki. Notability is subjective.Felixcoult (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)— Felixcoult (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Non-notable as a businessman or educator. Smells like self-promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khanum Haji[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have to look carefully at this. Because this player came before any of the tennis organizations included in Tennis Notability. This tournament she won was the championship of India and was open to foreigners. Today any common player who wins an ITF Women's $50,000 tourney is notable. Certainly the women's grass court champion of India (and the first) deserves even more. She was a star in India article 1 and article 2 and the tournement is talked about in books like "the Encyclopedia of Tennis." Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She appears to be a notable figure in the history of tennis in India. Given that her playing career would appear to be in the 1940's, online sourcing may be harder to come by, and as noted by Fyunck(click), teh WP:NTENNIS guidelines don't really account well for historical players that predate the modern organisations of tennis. She is noted as an historical figure in tennis in several news and books that are available online. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:MADEUP The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full 2014 FIFA World Cup qualifying table[edit]

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

Redundant of existing qualification pages. Additionally, comparison is on totally unequal grounds due to different qualifying methods in games played, etc. No indiction such a table is used in any form to meet GNG. Declined PROD, removed without comment. Ravendrop 21:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the article introduction states, this is an "imagined table" i.e. nothing but original research. Giant Snowman 15:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely love the idea of this, and would be delighted to see it continue to be updated... but somewhere else please. This is not notable and original research and therefore inappropriate here on two grounds. If you find another place to host it, please leave the url on my talk page, it's a fun idea. Sadly... delete. <sigh> --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as already stated, this article is obvious case of WP:OR. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanasia Coaster[edit]

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

Not reality, but a hyped up artproject. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per last time. You are implying art can't be notable? This got 86,000 hits at DYK, btw, even with no picture - smashing the previous record by a mile. It has had 365k views since it was created in late April, which makes it hard to argue it is too obscure to be notable. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I say art is not always notable and can be hyped up. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'll have to get beyond your personal opinion here. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused at the rationale for nominating this. "Reality" has nothing to do with anything as long as there are sources to establish notability. This is a conceptual project, so no it does not exist, but that does not negate notability per WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources so this would be a keep. freshacconci talktalk 22:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article already mentions it is a concept, not reality. And concepts are an art form / work in today's art world. I added "art" before "concept" to make it clearer, and to me, that should definitely solve the deletion issue as far as "reality" is concerned. As for the project being "hyped up", that is a subjective opinion, and certainly not enough to propose an article for deletion. (Also, the page had already been submitted for deletion once, and decision was to keep it, and this nomination doesn't acknowledge the fact.)

Henri Hudson (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very bloggy sourcing and I'm no fan of grand artistic statements, but it looks like this one is encyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

request for speedy close as keep as author of the request I have had misjudged the notability by looking at it from an euthanasia-point of view instead of an art-point of view. Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability...Modernist (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. some WP:RS improvement - clear consensus to keep - references to WP:GNG and WP:CLUB (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marshes Golf Club[edit]

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

Contested PROD, Non-notable Golf Club (Fails WP:CLUB), possible COI. Mt king ^(edits) 22:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I made the proposed deletion that was contested, so I think we can assume I agree. On the other hand I arrived at the article via Mtking's post on COI board so we'll have seen the same evidence. Failedwizard (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article, so obviously I believe it is a notable subject. Thanks for adding the additional references Eastmain. Andy.w.sparks 20:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article currently has scant third-party coverage (Wikipedia:N and Wikipedia:ORG indicate there should be significant reliable third-party coverage), and mostly citations to the subject itself. JFHJr (㊟) 08:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 - “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) 11:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per addition of reliable sources to article, and their availability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article now has seven references in it, including an article from the Ottawa Sun. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin : Due to the drive-by nature of some of Northamerica1000's afd contibutions at least one admin is discounting comments not based on notability guidelines. (see here) Mt king ^(edits) 09:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mtking -- assuming that you are not simply seeking to attack the editor, what in his comment here is not based on wp notability guidelines? The existence of notability due to the existence of references in articles such as that of the Sun, it strikes me, is a core wp notability concept.
Comment - Here's the link addition I was referring to, to clarify: "Seniors shooting for The Marshes", originally published in the Ottawa Sun. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 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, Rcsprinter (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added another ref. It seems like a topic we should have in the encyclopedia so that readers can find out more about it, and it meets WP:CLUB. Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The reference added above, along with other references now in the article, appear to collectively qualify topic notability per WP:GNG. Here is the link that was added to the article by user:Unscintillating - "The Marshes to celebrate 10 years in community.". The topic is covered in multiple reliable sources, beyond a passing mention. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the references that exist, including those added by Eastmain. Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Alonso[edit]

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

Nonnotable dance teacher who is quoted in one article in Financial Times (which is more about tango itself than about Mr. Alonso). Fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Most of the article was a cut and paste from here and has been removed as a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 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) 20:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In his removing copyvio, User:Whpq pointed the way to the website listing of several archived media articles about the man and his work: Eastern Daily Press La Nacion De Echo East London Advertiser leading to other searches finding La Nacion 2 FormulaTV Sur Digital torreviejaip.tv Huelva Información El Diario Montañés ADN Red Aragón El Correo Digital Il Quotidiano as well as book hits for his name plus Flamenco or Tango My question beocmes... just how much English language coverage do we expect for an Argentinian artist and performer? I would think that notable for Argentina, no matter his profession, should be notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.

In this article^WebCite from the Eastern Daily Press, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this article^WebCite from La Nación, I could not find Alonso's name.
This article^WebCite from De Echo is about Alonso's coming to Amsterdam. It has contact information, such as a phone number and email, at the article's end. This "announcement", possibly a press release, falls under WP:ROUTINE.
This article^WebCite from East London Advertiser does not mention Alonso.
In this article^WebCite from La Nación, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this article^WebCite from FormulaTV, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this article^WebCite from Sur Digital, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this article^WebCite from torreviejaip.tv, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this article^WebCite from Huelva Información, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this article^WebCite from El Diario Montañés, Alonso is mentioned twice.
In this article^WebCite from ADN, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this page^WebCite from Red Aragón, I could not find any mention of Alonso.
In this article^WebCite from El Correo Digital, Alonso is mentioned once.
In this article^WebCite from Il Quotidiano, Alonso is mentioned once.
In the first result of the search for "Pablo Alonso" and "Flamenco", the source states: "Pablo Alonso es un muchacho joven, con cierto aire deportivo de moderno hombre de negocios, que tiene desde hace quince días una querida que se llama Laurita." This translates to "Pablo Alonso is a young boy with an air of modern sports businessman, who has for fifteen days loved one who is called Laurita." (see Google Translate). I am certain this has no relevance to the Pablo Alonso in this article.
This article^WebCite from the Financial Times is about tango and contains some quotes and biographical information about Alonso.
This article^WebCite from Tango Norte is an interview with Alonso and contains little secondary information. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wisteria (color)[edit]

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

A bunch of articles about colors, such as this one and the most of the ones linked in that AfD, were just deleted. This is an poorly-sourced (only source is a dictionary) stub about a non-notable color. It fails WP:GNG and I'd say that it is a WP:DICDEF. Slon02 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Slon02 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Many of these "color" articles are just dictionary definitions as the nominator says. The same hue and value in a color schema such as Munsell may have been called a number of different names by sellers of paint, pigment, fabric or crayons. Where is significant coverage of "wisteria" as a color? Edison (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication this particular hue is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Variations of purple. It is an actual color (both in 1892 and today per Crayola) unlike some of the others in recent AfDs. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an actual color because somebody working for Crayola was paid to think of a name for a new color that isn't more important than the countless other shades of purple that have "names", or is it an actual color because it was used by an unknown someone for an unknown reason at unknown notability over a century ago?--Slon02 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most flowers have colors named after them. These colors named after flowers are in wide use. Keraunos (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that this particular color named after a flower is in wide use? I'm not disputing that other colors named after flowers are.--Slon02 (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - It's already in the article on the color Lavender (color) at Lavender (color)#Light lavender (wisteria). Therefore, there is no need for a separate article. Keraunos (talk) 22:38, 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, Rcsprinter (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lavender (color)#Light lavender (wisteria) per Keraunos. There's nothing in this article that isn't already there. Deor (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Nebula[edit]

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

This is a minor and inconsequential character, with just three or four comic book appearences since being created twenty years ago. "It's a parody of Galactus" is all the out-of-universe information we may ever say about it. There are no secondary sources, and with this context, I seriously doubt they exist for this article Cambalachero (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, about 10 seconds online produced a viable 3rd party citation from a book which talked about how this character moved from series to a parody character. This seems to indicate 3rd party source exist. Mathewignash (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis artical I will admit, needs sources!!, but it appears to already be start-class in legnth, after its information is verrified it could be expanded further on. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to presume that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline. All that shows up with a quick search engine test are trivial mentions, nothing that indicates that the character has analytic or evaluative claims made about him in reliable secondary sources. Without reception and significance, the article is a summary-only description of a fictional work, nothing to presume that the fictional character deserves a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources gven so far merely confirm that the character exists, meaning, it was indeed published at some issues of the Justice League comic book. But existence does not equal notability. We can have articles about things from fiction, but if written from an out-of-universe perspective. And that's precisely the problem: that there is no such information. "Publication history" has only one sentence written under that perspective, it can be halved nto two, but that's as long as it will ever get. We can't talk about a history of creative teams working with the character, visual or narrative changes done over the years, regular publications or big crossovers featuring it as the main character, use in other media; because none of that exist. As I said, "three or four comic book appearences" is all. Expansion is not possible, the only way to expand would be to explain into even higher detail the plot of those issues, which is a big no-no. Cambalachero (talk) 18:08, 14 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, causa sui (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant reliable secondary sources coverage asserted in this discussion or found in my search. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 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, Rcsprinter (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries and this article does not have enough coverage in reliable sources to WP:verify notability and provide information on reception and context. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No quorum here. causa sui (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Biggest Loser Australia: Singles[edit]

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

Future event, crystal-balling, no refs Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is confirmed. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so my understanding is that the whole reason this page is considered for deletion is because of a lack of references. There is no mirror balling and I apologise for the lack of references. I have now referenced everything which will hopefully clear everything up. There is no reason for its deletion. As SL93 states, this season is well and truly confirmed and even now has its own official web page discussing the new format. Bbmaniac (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pending a reliable, independent source discussing this. So far all the sources which do are the show's own website and bloggers; none of these suffice to meet the GNG. Ravenswing 10:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? How is information on the show's official site not a good enough reference? That's like saying information on YouTube's About Page about YouTube is invalid, which makes no sense. The other references come from TV Tonight, which if you didn't know, is a very reliable source of television information whereby the author of the blog has ties with Network Ten chief programmer David Mott (Don't believe me? Ask him). The blog post that is referenced references itself from the Network Ten PR detailing their program launch and info for returning shows. Unless it has been taken down, I did reference the page number in which information about TBLS is featured in the PR. I invite you to look for the document and read for yourself. Bbmaniac (talk) 06:45, 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, causa sui (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fixing the problem— WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM— is likely more appropriate than blanket deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That would be nice, but no one seems to have lifted a finger to do so, yourself included. Ravenswing 01:20, 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, Rcsprinter (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of film and television directors[edit]

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

Nothing more than a list; much better dealt with through categories. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no valid deletion rationale here. Last things first: your assertion that this list should be deleted because the subject is "much better dealt with through categories" is contrary to WP:CLN, which represents the strong consensus that lists and categories may coexist as complementary formats for indexing articles. That one format may perform a task better is not relevant to deletion unless you are using that as a comparison to illustrate why a particular format fails to do something even adequately. No doubt this list could be made more useful, or subdivided in some way, but that's a matter for normal editing and discussion to determine. And I simply don't get what you mean at all by saying this is "[n]othing more than a list", as lists don't have to be anything more than lists. If by that you simply mean that this just lists article links without any annotations, that's not grounds for deletion, and it would in any event be fixable even if we decided that annotations were desirable here. postdlf (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists are great... if they contain more than just a bunch of links. This is just a bunch of links with no other data. If was more than an alphabetical list, perhaps saying when they were active or some other related data it might be worthwhile. As it is, compare the article to Category:Film directors, or even better to the nicely organised Category:Film directors by language, Category:Film directors by genre, and Category:Lists of film directors by nationality. Compare it to other director lists like List of directorial debuts, List of highest-grossing directors, or List of directors with two or more Academy Awards for Best Director. I don't see the point of a list with the inclusion criteria of "they directed one or more films/music videos/episodes". violet/riga _^[talk] 21:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CLN, the existence of a category is not a valid reason to delete a corresponding list. Jclemens (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid/policy based rationale supplied by the nominator for deletion and the list goes hand-in-hand with the category structure, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others' arguments that lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. If there is a problem with how the list presents the directors, then the list can be improved via editing and not deletion. A list being overly simple is not grounds for deletion; it is grounds for discussing what other information can be imparted in such a list. We could have birth date, country of origin, first film, most recent film, etc. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This subject is so huge and unnecessary. The list will forever be incomplete and unmanageable. It just seems silly. Further, it only states the names, which a category can do. It has been said that more information can be added, but that would make it even more incomplete, and even more unmanageable. Vandals can easily change dates and make the information incorrect. Having this article exist just seems wrong. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has many lists that are forever incomplete; it is not a reason to delete. Nor is the potential for vandalism a reason to delete. Arguments for deletion need to be grounded in policies and guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like every now and then, a couple editors discover, to their surprise and confusion, that lists exist on Wkipedia. And then we get these meritless AFDs that mainly raise complaints about the inherent limits of the list format, or even flaws inherent to most Wikipedia content. "Delete, it's not perfect and requires work to maintain and develop." postdlf (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or people have different views to you about the worth of such articles. No need to be rude. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that lists exist, but this list is too broad of a scope. You can't possibly think you can list every single person who has developed a film/tv show. With only listing their names, it seems silly to have such an article. Who would want to read this? What knowledge would you gain from this list? I don't understand what it's purpose is. "Oh, there is no director with a last name starting with X!"(the one currently in the category is wrong, as the first name starts with x, not the last name.) If you can answer how this list is useful, then I will rethink my stance. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an index of articles. It facilitates reader browsing and editing of related topics, like any other list of articles.
It might be that the list is fine as it is simply because there is utility simply in having all directors listed in one page, as a complement to the fragmented subdivisions of the Category:Directors category system, particularly given the international character of the film and TV industries, overlapping genres, etc. If you are looking for coverage of a particular director, you may not remember how to spell his name (I constantly have this problem with Krzysztof Kieślowski) or have problems with diacritics, or you may not know whether he's British, Australian, or American, if his movies are shown in theaters around the world.
It might be that the list should be, while kept all on one page, further developed so as to have a annotated and perhaps sortable table with nationality, medium, birthdate/deathdate, years active, etc.
Or it might be that this should be split into a list of lists, as with the even more broad profession of writers.
So regardless of which way the list should go, the answer is normal editing and discussion, not deletion. None of which has even been attempted, judging from the lack of talk page posts by the deletion nom. Violetriga thinks I'm being rude for judging her deletion rationale harshly. But given that the deletion comments thus far display very little substance (or effort) regarding this list and its potential, are contrary to relevant guidelines (WP:CLN), contrary to editing policy (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM) and contrary to deletion policy (WP:ATD), these comments should be criticized so that hopefully such weak and wasteful AFDs won't be started in the future. postdlf (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your keep rationale is mainly based on "it could be good" rather than looking at the current state of the article. Yes, there is potential, but when compared to the articles I noted above this list is poor. Throw guidelines and policies at me all you want, but I don't see the use of this article as it is right now. Saying that this is contrary to policy is merely a dismissal of another person's views and opinions, and it's a shame that you have resorted to that. I still await some sort of reasoning from you as to why this is not already adequately covered elsewhere, but then you'll probably be rude again so I won't hold my breath for a sensible discussion. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current state of the article does not factor into whether or not the topic's article should be deleted. WP:BEFORE says, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Erik (talk | contribs) 03:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems to be a textbook example of what WP:CLN certifies as "wikipedic". "Encyclopedic" is difficult to discern as encyclopedias in general have different standards for lists; some are full of them, some abhor them, but CLN is where suitability for Wikipedia is laid out and we should defer to it. It clearly needs work but there's definitely potential to "add value" compared to categories or navboxes. TheGrappler (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What exactly is the inclusion criteria here? A list of anyone who has ever directed anything ever? Or a list of directors who have worked in both film and television? If the former, then it is useless. If the latter, then it has potential. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The former, as far as I can see. But why would it be useless? If simply because it is doomed to become too big, then it can always be split into sublists once it is more fully developed. TheGrappler (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, is everyone unsure what this is for? ~~In any case, I reckon delete.~~ Borderline indiscriminate, ~~and is just a duplication of List of film directors with some television directors added.~~ Wouldn't it be better to have a List of television directors instead? Fail to see the usefulness of this as a standalone page, due to its vast scope. However I could see some merit of a List of directors who have worked in both film and television or the like. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - didn't realise that List of film directors redirected here. Two distinct lists - List of film directors and List of television directors - would be FAR more useful than this one (although personally I feel them a little unnecessary). So, now I reckon split. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although most of the 'Keep' "votes" are weak (it is not obvious why we should have articles on all X11 colors if they are not discusses in sources) there is no consensus among other participants as to whether the article should be merged, redirected, or deleted. While further discussion at this AfD is unlikely to generate a clear consensus, discussions either at the articles talk page or a centralized discussion of how to handle less notable/poorly sourced X11 colors might be in productive. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steel blue[edit]

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

A bunch of articles about colors, such as this one and the most of the ones linked in that AfD, were just deleted. This is an poorly-sourced (only source is a dictionary) stub about a non-notable color. It fails WP:GNG and I'd say that it might even be a WP:DICDEF. Slon02 (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Slon02 (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A vague dictionary definition of a color which would be better specified by Munsell color system or other standard notation. Such color names are arbitrarily applied by merchants to their products, with different merchants using different names for the same hue, value and chroma. Edison (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is virtue in having all the colors from a standard color chart, even if some individual colors are not so notable. I don't think there is an explicit policy based argument for this, so I will have to fall back to Wikipedia is not Paper and Ignore All Rules. Note that other X11 colors (such as Wheat (color)) were not deleted in recent AfDs. There is no consensus that they should be deleted. Francis Bond (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a color isn't notable, it shouldn't have a separate article. The argument about Wikipedia not being paper is not appropriate, because that policy specifically states that all articles must still meet our guidelines for inclusion- including notability.--Slon02 (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication this colour is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Variations of blue. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Variations of blue. An X11 color. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All X11 colors should have articles in Wikipedia because they are widely used by web site designers. All X11 colors are notable. Keraunos (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting to see some evidence that can establish that notability, at least for each specific color that was nominated. How are each one of them individually notable- how do they satisfy WP:GNG? If you have some policy that you'd like to use to counter that, be my guest.--Slon02 (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that all X11 colors should have articles when there is sufficient information available. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - X11 colors, at least, should have articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Heroes of Might and Magic. causa sui (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erathia[edit]

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

No third-party sources exist that can WP:verify notability. Without significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, it's impossible to write something that meets the general notability guideline and WP:NOT#PLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Heroes of Might and Magic--the game series article--per WP:ATD. I'll note that the article currently appears to have sourcing to meet V, but not N, hence a merger is the most appropriate outcome unless additional sources can be found. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content does not appear useful. The kingdom is not even mentioned on the Heroes of Might and Magic article. I could see creating a Universe of Might and Magic article, but the unsourced contents of Erathia would not be useful as a starting point. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:17, 18 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) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: The fictional land does not meet the general notability guideline and any articles about it can only be a summary-only descriptions of a fictional work. I do not think that the content is useful beyond a game guide, so I believe that deletion is the most suitable option. Jfgslo (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Wikipedia:CSD#G12). Tonywalton ^Talk 01:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking rice[edit]

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

WP:NOTGUIDE. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge into Rice#Cooking which is the same topic. Warden (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While that is the same topic, the problem remains. This is an extensive how to guide. While I cannot locate the source, that this was created, as is, in one edit; is written in the first person and has a random ad link included, I am inclined to believe this was copied from someone's blog. While this would be entirely appropriate for someone's cooking blog, Wikipedia is a not someone's cooking blog. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Someone found the source. This is now up as a copyvio of jimmythdothubpagesdotcom/hub/How-to-Cook-Rice-in-Electric-Rice-Cookers (apparently, this site is blacklisted... hmm...). If, for some unimaginable reason, the article survives the AfD, my !vote remains as this is one of the most obvious blog entries I've yet to run across on WP: first person, how to, unsourced, etc. Wow... just wow. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be honest the edit summary on article creation looks more spammy than a spam fritter served with egg, beans, spam, spam, sausages, spam and spam. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of jimmyth.h u b p a g e s dot com slash hub/How-to-Cook-Rice-in-Electric-Rice-Cookers (apologies for the munged URL, but h u b p a g e s triggers an edit filter). Article tagged for speedy as copyvio. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 upon request. causa sui (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bawdies[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:BAND. claim to being compared to the Beatles not backed up by given reference. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability - last.fm is not a reliable source.--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just had this undeleted to fix it, give those of us working a break.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- But userfy if requested, no reason they can't continue to work on it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 01:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DLOL[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—unencyclopedic dictionary definition of dubious reality. i cleaned it up a little because i couldn't help myself, but it was in no way an attempt at rescue, which isn't possible IMHO. OMG, DLOL!!!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a dictionary definition for a term that fails to meet the general notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:42, 1 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) 00:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Theory of stellar evolution[edit]

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

Non-notable concept. Only one source provided, which seems dubious and unreliable. A quick search on Google can find no results. Also, we have an article on stellar evolution - the 'new theory' seems to add nothing to the concept. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Synthesis. The only actual source seems to be the book "Planet Sun" by a certain Sean Patterson. It doesn't seem to be academic however. It's a directly published eBook.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The theory is a long ways away from the scientific consensus and has not attracted enough of a following to be otherwise notable. --Yaush (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly written and weakly sourced synthesis, it adds nothing to the body of knowledge here, and is unlikely to be a search term. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Looks likely a rambling collection of ideas that are not particularly "new" and might be considered OR, if they were original. The statements about sunspots being solidified matter is approaching surrealism. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fringe theories have nothing on this! It's...fringiest. Fringetastic? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Aikido Academy[edit]

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

This organization seems to consist of an aikido school founded in 2009 and schools where the founder has given seminars. I can find no independent sources about this organization and the article makes no claims of notability. Existing is not the same as notable. The Academy is already mentioned in the article on the founder so there's really nothing to merge. Papaursa (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recently established organization without sources to establish notability. I found only primary sources. jmcw (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no independent sources and no indication that this organization is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost an WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeyedBits[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY - documents a new format created this month; only gets 2 non-Wikipedia google hits. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Nat Gertler (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Oh, my. Not even close to satisfying WP:GNG. Blatantly WP:MADEUP. Msnicki (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only a step away from original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Article lacks reliable third party sources and is almost entirely comprised of origional research. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New and interesting data structure. In the world of computing and development there is a lot of original research and some of the best things are created on a whim. There is great potential in the concept and project, if the wiki page was given a little more effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.26.202 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — 173.69.26.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. At the very least it's absolutely WP:MADEUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 1 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} 01:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Cutforth[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Article creator has asserted notability but has not provided any sources or evidence. Contested PROD and CSD. ItsZippy (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claims notability but sources do not support this as most claims to notability are cited using the subjects own webpage, rather than 3rd party sources. As an example, claims to work with the BBC yet uses the subjects website to prove this rather than a 3rd party site. Several users have now taken it upon themselves to remove AfD and CSD templates from the page, rather than engage with other editors and defend the article.RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 18:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The primary assertion of notability is being known for his work on "In the House." But the only citation to that is a non-reliable source. I have attempted to locate reliable source coverage for him both under his blogging name, "LukeIsNotSexy" and his full name "Luke Cutforth" and have turned up primarily social media content. I haven't been able to locate significant reliable source coverage. The only information I can find on the BBC is user created content: [9], which clearly is not reliable secondary source coverage. I have also turned up a campaign to promote Luke Cutforth, and perhaps some of the editing activity on Wikipedia is related to the same effort: [10]. Barring someone providing good reliable secondary source coverage to establish notability, this looks like he fails WP:CREATIVE. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To RandomAct, before accusing the Wikipedia community of using the site for promotion, take a look at what has been said on the talk page! "Information and evidence for the aforementioned contacts in work will be added very soon. Reports from the likes of BBC are generally released later on to avoid copying, or to await copyright clearance. There are several press reports on this subject if you delve further into search results." Also think about this one, since your tone of writing seems to dismiss the validity and skill of the subject. 'This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because no human is unimportant, and it is purely lack of server space that we all don't have Wikipedia pages. This is a young man who will go far in the future, but his past (and present) should not be forgotten.' Lastly, as a Wikipedia Administrator, I would have thought that you of all people would have noticed that the site you claim to be 'promoting' the subject by use of Wikipedia has been dormant since February. Here is an example of a source to verify some claims of the article. [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycake (talk • contribs) — Garycake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Since this page is for a discussion of the merits of the article I will reply to your points that fall under this heading. Firstly we cannot accept the promise that reliable sources are forthcoming as a reliable source. Once the BBC or another 3rd party source release information that will change things, but until then my issues with the sources stand. Secondly I would like to point out that I am not, not I have I ever been, an Administrator here. It would appear ConcernedVancouverite has done some digging to find reliable sources and has shared his/her results above. I would respond to your remaining point but I must confess I don't know what you are trying to say. Lastly, please keep posts on this page to information related to the potential deletion of the article. RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 19:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Garycake. I have read and appreciate the comment on the talk page which states Cutforth is working with the BBC, BFI and Tim Burton. However, the comment provided no sources to back this up with. If a reliable source was presented, then the assertion would hold more weight. As it is, most of us find it hard to accept that Cutforth is working with these figures without some sort of evidence. In any case, if the assertion made is true, that is still not enough for the article to be kept. Not only does what is asserted about his work have to be the truth, it also needs to be notable. At present, no reliable, third-party sources have been presented which demonstrate such notability. Therefore, the article is a strong candidate for deletion. If a good source (and by good, I mean not self-published, reliable, not connected to the subject, and the like) can be found which verifies the claim made on the talk page and provides notability, then there is scope for keeping it. Until then, I stand by my nomination for deletion. ItsZippy (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this young man becomes notable, in a few years' time someone with no COI will write about him here. Until then we need nothing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excessive SPS-based detail is not a substitute for legitimate evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sufficiently notable. ItsZippy sums it up very well. Edwardx (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject does not meet notability criteria for biographies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has a massive reference section populated exclusively with unreliable sources. I can find no reliable sources to meet verifiability which is fundamental to Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 01:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florin Ilie[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing an explaination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSOCCER due to not having played in fully-pro league and no assertion that he meets WP:GNG. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 01:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bandaru Danaiah Kavi[edit]

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

Article was originally created and then speedied under A7. It was recreated and then the article was prodded and was deproded, but original concern was not addressed so we are at Afd. I am unable to locate reliable source coverage to establish notability. I note that there is also a Sockpuppet investigation regarding some of the editors on the article here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bandarudanaiahkavi. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hmmmm, an apparent "conflict of interest". It isn't demonstrated that the subject meets WP:GNG. I do not consider the secondary sources reliable and the primary sources are basically social media blogs created by the subject (or by the article creator... It's difficult to tell as they share the same name). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. No significant coverage in reliable sources is provided and I have found none. The references and external links are self-published sites. This is clearly self-promotional spam (WP:PROMO). The creator's user page User:Bandarudanaiahkavi (that was an entire copy of this article) was speedy deleted for the same reason. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blatant hoax. Deleted per CSD G3 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben and Holly's Little Ice Cream[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Suspected WP:HOAX/WP:MADEUP/WP:NF – no ghits, no sources, no nuffink. matt (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: either promotion or hoax, either way it has to go. [email protected] (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Obvious hoax. Note to nominator: PRODS are useless. —Mike Allen 05:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the topic is not verifiable online (which is near-impossible for a contemporary topic, especially a film). Nothing in the article asserts any notability either. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a hoax; even if it's not, subject still fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NF. Gongshow ^Talk 15:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lugibihl[edit]

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

Autobiography with no encyclopedic sources. Only link is to listing of works for sale, which violates WP:Yourself. Editors are discouraged from creating a page about themselves. If Robert Lugibihl is notable, a 3rd party will eventually create an article about him. AstroCog (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've had a quick search but can't find anything in terms of WP:RS that would prove he meets WP:GNG or specifically WP:AUTHOR. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing but social networking sites and the like in the first two pages of a quick Google search.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper - please see links http://www.sequentialtart.com/archive/jan00/lugibihl.shtml

http://comicbookdb.com/creator.php?ID=3806 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlugibihl (talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does not establish notability.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G6). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Xavier high school (Mumbai)[edit]

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

Author possibly wanted to create redirect. Unforunately, page cannot be redirected due to incorrect typo. Therefore, nominating for deletion. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was Delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hockey Night In Canada commentators for 2011–12 NHL season[edit]

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

Unencylcopedic WP:LISTCRUFT, this is of interest to only a limited audience. Runs against WP:NOTDIRECTORY #8 and WP:WHIM #3. Prod disputed. PK T(alk) 14:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 14:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Patken4 (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Cruft"? "Delete per nom"? I'm starting to have flashbacks to 2007. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yes, per nom. We already have List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators, that I think is of dubious value as a separate list from Hockey Night in Canada. To drill down to who was the commentator of each individual game is beyond excessive, and completely unencyclopedic. PKT - you might wish to add List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators for 2010–11 NHL season to this nom. Otherwise, one of us might as well AfD it separately. Reso lute 16:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the other list for the previous season, Resolute. I think a separate AfD is proper for the other article - it doesn't seem proper to piggyback a second article into an existing AfD. PK T(alk) 18:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the nomination as WP:LISTCRUFT is not a policy, WP:NOTDIR #8 - "A complete exposition of all possible details." - doesn't apply as the lists are very specific and WP:WHIM #3 - "Long and sprawling lists of statistics" doesn't apply as the lists are short and specific.
However, my feeling is Delete as failing to meet WP:GNG - I highly doubt there are multiple secondary sources that specifically discuss the commentary personnel for each match. I've no doubt it can be proved who commentated but that would almost certainly be in the form of a trivial mention. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically for all the things you lecture about in this comment...you actually get it wrong in that not all items in a list have to be notable.... -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hopeless failure of the GNG; exactly where is this 2011-12 list discussed distinct from that of any other season in the eighty-year lifespan of this show? Ravenswing 01:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the nominator's reasons. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator nailed it right on the head. Whether or not list cruft is a policy, it is a good explanation of why this is a bad article. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Internet forum software (WordPress)[edit]

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

Appears to be original research or synth. Last I checked, the talk page and the main page were the same content. AstroCog (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page by the same creator as it is a virtual copy:

Please note that the article directly above was previously CSD'd and the editor has been previously banned for repeatedly creating spam/inappropriate articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I don't think this list is compelling. In any case, if this discussion results in keep, we can a10/redirect this article and keep Wordpress internet forum plugins, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As synthesis and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCASE studies. Dzlife (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Millie Midwinter-Lean[edit]

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

Actress that simply does not meet WP:BIO. Her only credited roles are a part in a five minute trailer of a film that has yet to be completed and a small part in an independent horror film. The only media coverage I could find is this BBC report on the five minute trailer but it's too superficial to be of much use. Pichpich (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She has other credits listed on IMDb and other media coverage [12] [13] Lemonpopsicle(talk)
- The first is essentially a shortened version of the BBC report and the second only mentions her name. And we must be looking at different IMDb page: her film career consists of a feature film and a trailer for a film that may or may not turn out to be a feature film. It seems she also appeared once on BBC Breakfast (though it's unclear why) and once on a local news show when she was seven years old. I wish her all the best but she currently doesn't meet the notability threshold. Pichpich (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Performances in theatres & certainly in commercials aren't listed on IMDb at all, neither are all films. So although an individual may only have certain credits shown they may indeed have many more that will not be listed. There's more media coverage here [14]for the full version of the trailer. IMDb is the only database that allows actors to list their credits and as I have already stated it does not allow everything. This particular person has many more credits albeit, theatrical, viral, commercial, corporate & film/TV than what can be shown on an IMDb link.Lemonpopsicle(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- That last link you provided is about the trailer but it doesn't even mention the actress' name and that's the problem in a nutshell. Yes she may have had parts in amateur films, corporate films, online shorts or commercials, she may have had uncredited roles in major films or parts in small theatrical productions and perhaps that makes her an excellent actress. It does not however make her a notable actress in the very specific sense of the term used on Wikipedia. Pichpich (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it does not matter how many credits or how much experience an individual has Wikipedia merely relies on how many times the name is mentioned in the media? Now I get it, so you could be in just one film but if you have several reviews listing how wonderful/rubbish your performance is you have more chance of making it onto Wikipedia than someone who has several credits without reviews? Also bear in mind that if people are gleaning their information off IMDb, television credits are not listed until the programme has been aired, sometimes a year after filming has finished! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonpopsicle (talk • contribs) 16:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. To respond to the above, it indeed does not matter how many credits, experience or wonderful performances an actor may have under their belt if they haven't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When evaluating notability of this subject, consideration is made in accordance with topical notability guidelines for actors. The key points we review include 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. and 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The subject is presumed notable if s/he meets one of these topical criteria. Presumption and claims of significance, importance, and notability must then be confirmed through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately, there is nothing presented in the article that indicates that the subject meets either the topical or general notability guidelines. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for now per WP:TOOSOON. Currently her short career fails WP:ENT and the lack of wider coverage fails WP:GNG. I will note the BBC article is decent enough... but just the one article does not a notability create. We might consider a return of this article when her career expands and she gets coverage, but not just yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Mendonca[edit]

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

Thinly sourced--at best -- biography of a minor--at best--environmental writer. No real claims of importance, impact, or notoriety can be found, other that he's been published by a trade/specialist press. CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. Multiple serious/scholarly books from reputable publishers. Worldcat search shows extensive library holdings of his books, particularly in academic libraries. GNews search shows a lot of apparently substantive coverage, almost exclusively in Spanish-language media. GScholar turns up more than enough hits to convince me that he should be presumed notable absent a convincing case otherwise. "Minor" doesn't translate to "not notable," even assuming that characterization is accurate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HW -- notable author with extensive coverage. Johnfos (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Fuentes[edit]

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

Article is a resume; lacks verifiable, third party sources; PROD tag removed, apparently by article creator Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like I said on the PROD, Wikipedia is not for posting your CV/resume. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I've given the article some cleanup,[15] and despite its origins, the actor appears to meet WP:ENT and his work seems verifiable. However, this will require Spanish-reading Wikipedians to look through Spanish-language sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 13 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, v/r - T P 01:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After some work, I've been unable to find the reliable sourcing that would be required to demonstrate WP:ENT. That doesn't mean it's not out there, but .. there's a television character with this name who is, as near as I can tell, more noted than the actor himself. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find anything in terms of third party coverage to show any hint of notability (not even in the usual soap opera-oriented blogs). Actually, the only mentions I could find come from his own CV as posted in several places, the rest are about other people or even the character mentioned above. As for the career, it would seem that all parts have been minor. These are some of the official websites [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]; while they are not as comprehensive as IMDB, they list the lead, secondary, and in some cases tertiary roles, and Mr Fuentes is not mentioned in any of them. I don't think that he didn't participate in them, but the only verification available right now is IMDB, short of contacting the broadcasters for confirmation. As for the album, it is a three-track compilation of potpourris [22], though to be fair his name does appear in the cover. I was hoping to find something about playing with "La Sonora Santanera", since they are indeed a very famous band, but no luck either — frankie (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-TEN glofiish X500[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; could be Redirected to E-TEN as that company appears to be notable even though this individual product is not. However, anyone searching for this product is going to find E-TEN so a redirect seems unnecessary. --MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 18 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, v/r - T P 01:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No quorum. causa sui (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HDJ-1000[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge Easily mergeable into an article on the line of sony headphones. But this is a current product , and there might be reviews, which would make it independently notable DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a current product and the existence of reviews does not necessarily make it notable enough for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a product notable if not significant coverage in reliable sources?--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we do not have a notability guide for product - but WP:PRODUCT suggests merging into the manufacturers article - so we have to make a judgement on a case by case basis. Given that there are 100s of 1000s of products out there and the need to avoud SPAM by stealth and to avoid giving one particular product unnecessarily high exposure via WP there is a need to take a hard line on product articles. An article on a pair of headphone? What next an article on a brand of nail polish? Oh, I see that has already happened. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge fails WP:GNG currently. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:42, 17 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, v/r - T P 01:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tagged the article with Template:Expand Ossetian (after creating it). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elbazduko Britayev[edit]

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

no sources Inthegarden52 (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books Search: Елбыздыко Бритаев (his name in Russian) Moscowconnection (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [23] but not in the Russian Wikipedia yet: ru:Бритаев, Елбыздыко Цопанович. Moscowconnection (talk) 20:36, 17 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, v/r - T P 01:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the subject is notable enough for a print encyclopedia, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's quite a lengthy article in the Ossetian Wikipedia (os:Брытъиаты Елбыздыхъо), which even seems to contain a reference in Russian - would this be useable? Meanwhile, while the Great Soviet Encyclopedia was never entirely reliable, the unreliability was very much concentrated on certain topics. From the Google translation of the article, I don't think that it's significantly affected by the unreliable areas. So, bearing in mind systemic bias, on the basis that we have one immediately available more or less reliable source and that other probably better ones, in Russian and Ossetic, are almost certain to exist, I'd say keep. PWilkinson (talk) 20:19, 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, BusterD (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Than Yutthachaibodin[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Thai author with one reference (in Thai) from an unknown source. There is a corresponding article in the Thai Wikipedia, but it's also tagged with warnings. I'm unable to find any reliable sources demonstrating the subject's notability. Pburka (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The linked reference in the article is a directory of Thai authors compiled by Prof. Ora-Ong Chakorn of NIDA and published by the Office of Contemporary Art And Culture of the Ministry Of Culture. It's basically a name list (with 320 authors on the list) and doesn't provide in-depth information about any single person. This interview (in Thai) on ryt9.com, a news aggregation website, mentions multiple published works and awards including an honourable mention from the 2006 Phan Waen Fa Awards (organised by the Thai Writers' Association in cooperation with the Thai Parliament), the 2007 Subha Devakul Award, and an honourable mention from this year's Outstanding Books Awards (organised by the Office of the Basic Education Commission of the Ministry of Education). --Paul_012 (talk) 04:38, 14 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, v/r - T P 01:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article from "bankok biz news" may corroborate the 2007 Devakul award, but ... it's very hard to work through Google's horrendously bad autotranslation of Thai]. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:07, 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, BusterD (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability not proved. I've run those sites through Google Translate and the result is garbled and not enough (IMHO) to base a WP:AUTHOR claim on.
With respect, this is English-language Wikipedia and I feel it's unfair that editors should be forced to use web translation tools to attempt to trawl foreign language sites for possible references. The burden is on the creator to demonstrate notability and this has not been done, in my opinion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy The PDF reference does not suggest notabilty. The link provided by Joe Decker appears to be a newspaper blog and seems to be the the synopsis of a story/book. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood podcast[edit]

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

Unremarkable podcast - while there are some claims of notability in the article, it appears to fail WP:WEB. Award was only a nomination, not a win, cover claim could could not be verified by the citation given. No article for main performer, no significant coverage from independent sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:02, 12 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, v/r - T P 01:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google turned up hits for sure but I didn't find one that I felt conformed to WP:RS. Therefore I agree with nomination statement that WP:WEB is not met. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander and Maskell[edit]

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

The subject appears to fail WP:GNG. It includes references, but they are only passing mentions in very old newspapers. I was unable to find any other reliable sources to establish notability for this company. Topher385 (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:40, 12 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, v/r - T P 00:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whilst this existed a long time ago, there is nothing particularly noteworthy about this company to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Master of the Straits[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline. The content of the article itself is an unreferenced summary-only description of a fictional work that is also a content fork and an unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles, where the plot is already discussed, so this article should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 01:42, 17 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, v/r - T P 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Unreferenced plot-only description of a fictional character. Excessive fan trivia. There is nothing to suggest that this fictional character meets either our verifiability or notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 21:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect this and similar articles (in reduced form) to Kushiel's Legacy. --Lambiam 09:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plot-only description of a fictional character lacking sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isidore d'Aiglemort[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced article which subject, a fictional character, does not meet the general notability guideline and which content can only be a summary-only description of a fictional work. It is another content fork and unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles. Jfgslo (talk) 04:40, 17 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, v/r - T P 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this and similar articles (in reduced form) to Kushiel's Legacy. --Lambiam 09:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

House Trevalion[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of the article, a fictional duchy, does not meet the general notability guideline and any article about it can only be a summary-only description of a fictional work. Like other Kushiel's Legacy-related articles, this is an unneeded content fork and an unnecessary split. Jfgslo (talk) 04:45, 17 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, v/r - T P 00:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this and similar articles (in reduced form) to Kushiel's Legacy. --Lambiam 09:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kushiel's Legacy. Still redirecting so that future editorial merges are not precluded. causa sui (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alba and Eire (Kushiel's Legacy)[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fictional countries that do not meet the general notability guideline and which article can only be a summary-only description of a fictional work. The article is a content fork and an unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles and it is also devoid of references to justify its content. Jfgslo (talk) 01:49, 17 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, v/r - T P 00:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (in reduced form) to Kushiel's Legacy. (Redirection in this case makes less sense, as the title is not a particularly plausible search term.) --Lambiam 09:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I love the idea too, but unfortunately raw calendars do not belong in an encyclopedia. The "keep" !voters basically fall into WP:USEFUL. A transwiki, though, might be desirable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French Republican Calendar/Y1[edit]

These "articles" are not articles in any sense of the word. They are calendars for the 14 years during which the French Republican Calendar was active, as well as the previous and next year based on the current date. They were moved into article-space solely in order "to remove [them] from the list of unused templates", which is a pretty weak reason, in my view. In article space, they are nothing other than unencyclopedic detail. Note also that they are trivial template transclusions.

See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 5#Template:NavigationRepYears, a previous discussion on this matter which was rather obscurely closed as "Merge". — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment - That's gorgeous work. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No argument there. The template is already transcluded in the article French Republican Calendar (not to mention a number of user pages), so there shouldn't be a danger of losing this incredible template work. These really seem like demonstration pieces, appropriate maybe for the template documentation page, but not for the article space. I would !vote to move these pages to the original author's userspace, if it is within policy, otherwise delete.
PS, should the "Yx" page also be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanisaac (talk • contribs) 23:48, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I deliberately excluded Yx: I'll nominate it later. The creator is inactive, so they won't want them in their userspace. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thanks for the above link, that makes me feel much better. Delete all as a fork of French Republican Calendar . Carrite (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the author is inactive, and that the main FRC article will be preserved with enough of the template logic for it to continue to function, I don't see that userfication is necessary here. If the original author becomes active again it's easy to undelete on request. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles for Years 1-14. These should be a useful resource for historians who find dates according to the repblican calendard and want to convert them into conventional dates. Delete the Yx-1 Yx and Yx+1 articles. The calendar is long defunct and it is pointless putting modern dates in this format. I would criticise the French Republican Calendar article for focusing on the present date according to this defunct calendar, rather than using examples from the periood when it was in use. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know how I feel about the Republican-era calendars. It would be a useful reference, but I am not sure that is what Wikipedia is for, any more than having annual calendars for historical years using the standard Western calendar or the Islamic calendar. That being said, I agree completely with Peterkingiron that we should Delete the modern calendars, that are nothing but trivial curiosities of no reference value. Agricolae (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's explicitly not what Wikipedia is for. Would it be correct for us to host categories of every year of any other calendar? It's a calendar. Lengthy lists of what day of the week a given date fell on are not within our remit whether the calendar is Julian, French Republican or Mayan. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, the articles need to be renamed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:IINFO. Deor (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles for Years 1-14. As a family historian who regularly encounters Republican Calendar dates, there is no better, easier reference than this for conversion to Gregorian dates. On the assumption that this encyclopedia is the best first place to look for information on the French Republican Calendar, the articles for the historical years of the Calendar, in whatever way they are most suitably organized, are enlightening to users. Invinceble (talk) 00:13, 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) 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Kushiel's Legacy[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Inappropriate topic for Wikipedia per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists as this list of fictional locations is trivial, non-encyclopedic, and is not related to human knowledge since it falls into what what Wikipedia is not by being a summary-only description of a fictional work. Also, notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists, and the subject of this one, a list of characters from a fictional series, has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so the topic of the list does not meet the general notability guideline either. This list is an unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles, where the plot is already mentioned. The references within the article aren't even related to the fictional locations from the novels. Jfgslo (talk) 01:56, 17 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, v/r - T P 00:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (in reduced form) to Kushiel's Legacy. (Redirection in this case makes less sense, as the title is not a particularly plausible search term.) --Lambiam 09:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:TRAVELGUIDE especially a guide to traveling fictional places. Contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Dzlife (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

House Courcel[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fictional family that does not meet the general notability guideline and which article is unreferenced and consists of a summary-only description of a fictional work. It is also a content fork and an unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles, so there is no reason to keep the article around. Jfgslo (talk) 01:59, 17 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, v/r - T P 00:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this and similar articles (in reduced form) to Kushiel's Legacy. --Lambiam 09:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

House Shahrizai[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The topic of the article, a fictional noble family, does not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject and there is no indication that it can be anything other than a summary-only description of a fictional work. The article is unreferenced, it's an unneeded content fork and an unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles. Jfgslo (talk) 04:31, 17 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, v/r - T P 00:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this and similar articles (in reduced form) to Kushiel's Legacy. --Lambiam 09:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

House Somerville[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another unneeded content fork and unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles. None of the content is referenced and there is no evidence that the fictional family meets the general notability guideline or that an article about it can be anything other than a summary-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 04:36, 17 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, v/r - T P 00:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this and similar articles (in reduced form) to Kushiel's Legacy. --Lambiam 09:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stregazza family[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional family as a subject does not meet the general notability guideline. The article itself is unreferenced and consists of a summary-only description of a fictional work. It is also a content fork and an unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles, so it should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 01:01, 17 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, v/r - T P 00:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this and similar articles (in reduced form) to Kushiel's Legacy. --Lambiam 09:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phèdre's Boys[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that the subject of the article, a fictional navy, meets the general notability guideline and the content of the article can only be a summary-only description of a fictional work. The article has only one reference from a non-secondary unreliable source. The article itself is a content fork and an unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles. Jfgslo (talk) 00:56, 17 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, v/r - T P 00:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this and similar articles (in reduced form) to Kushiel's Legacy. --Lambiam 09:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tsingani[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The topic of the article, a fictional race of people, does not meet the general notability guideline and the content of the article can only be a summary-only description of a fictional work. On top of that, the article has no references and it is a content fork and an unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles. Jfgslo (talk) 00:42, 17 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, v/r - T P 00:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this and similar articles (in reduced form) to Kushiel's Legacy. --Lambiam 09:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshuites[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced article that is a summary-only description of a fictional work and which topic, a fictional race of people, does not meet the general notability guideline. It is also a content fork and an unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles. As such, it should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 00:31, 17 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, v/r - T P 00:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this and similar articles (in reduced form) to Kushiel's Legacy. --Lambiam 09:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kushiel's Legacy. causa sui (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Night-Blooming Flowers[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional group of schools known as the Court of Night-Blooming Flowers do not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone topic. The content of the article itself is a summary-only description of a fictional work devoid of references to presume that it can be improved beyond a plot-description. As such, this article is a content fork and an unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles, so I do not believe that there is a valid reason to keep this article around. Jfgslo (talk) 00:15, 17 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, v/r - T P 00:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this and similar articles (in reduced form) to Kushiel's Legacy. --Lambiam 09:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

All the info on this page is NOT on the Kushiel's Legacy Main page. This should clearly stay up for reference on the different houses of the night court. The source's are the books in Kushiel's Legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.18.163 (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2011 (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 nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Raymie (t • c) 20:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dora's Cooking Club[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient critical reception for these games. Since my redirects to Dora the Explorer might get reverted, they are up for a deletion discussion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) « ₣M₣ » 04:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aren't pretty much all console games reviewed by some magazine or another? I remember, back in the day, that Nintendo Power would review stuff like Elmo's Letter Adventure. Granted, I don't follow the video game scene as closely as I used to, so maybe things are different. Zagalejo^^^ 06:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt magazines like NP will spend space these days reviewing games like this. Yes, pretty much all games will have at least a couple of reviews. Is that sufficient for them to have their own article, only keep the information on the franchises' main article, or merge them into something like this? « ₣M₣ » 16:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the a huge library of magazines, but the ones I checked did not cover the game. I still bet that the Journey to the Purple Planet was covered somewhere; it looks like a well put-together game. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this. Another place to look would be parenting magazines. To FMF: multiple reviews (if they exist) usually is the threshold for an individual article. Maybe a merge could work, but I've never been much of a mergist, myself. An individual article gives you a little more flexibility and freedom than a section in a larger article. Zagalejo^^^ 00:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Dora Puppy I found a review in The Guardian, Go.com, and Epsom Guardian. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Dora's Cooking Club I also found familyfriendlyvideogames.com and about.com. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Default to keep Journey to the Purple Planet technically just limbos under the notability stick due to being reviewed on IGN and in PlayStation 2 magazine. I wouldn't oppose a proper merge into a list resembling List of Batman video games, but I don't have time to do it myself and unless someone else is they're better off as they are. Someone another 20:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose that style merge. In fact, I don't like {{Video game titles}} at all; I think sectioned prose is superior, especially when the games do not have stand alone articles. If there is consensus to merge, I would be willing to merge them. Would List of Dora the Explorer video games be a good title? And will anyone else agree that they should be merged? --Odie5533 (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That format, or sortable tables, have advantages for longer lists; the standard information like release date and formats are put in a pile leaving the description section to contain the juicy details. This isn't a long list though, and if you're going to put in the effort then it's your choice as far as I'm concerned. I'd call it by that name too :) If any of them can stand alone, it would also be possible to leave the article as is and link to it from the list. Someone another 14:16, 12 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, v/r - T P 00:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Odie. That's fine by me. So that's the result then? No one has objected thus far. « ₣M₣ » 23:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This can be withdrawn. « ₣M₣ » 16:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invertika[edit]

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

Contested PROD of "Still no verification and no assertion of notability, so should be removed (WP:V, WP:N)" with "removing the stranges boxes at top". Does not pass WP:GNG; cannot find any secondary, non-trivial, reliable sources to establish notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. I also looked through the various Google searches and turned up nothing. There appear to be no reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The game is apparently a non-notable fork of the marginally notable game The Mana World. I couldn't find a single reliable source, so I'm going with delete over redirect/merge. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:03, 25 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) 17:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable 3rd party publications; created by an SPA, so possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling female artists[edit]

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

This is an unnecessary list, all entries have been available on List of best-selling music artists with a combination of other best-seller albums list (e.g. List of best-selling albums, List of best-selling albums in Australia). This page is also not controlled by any Wiki editor and just full of IP vandalism edits - Bluesatellite (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no male artist list, so there is not a need for this list. 11coolguy12 (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UNDUE and nom. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What rationale is there to split between female and male bestselling artists?Curb Chain (talk) 12:08, 1 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 and rename Welsh-language comics, with concordant cleanup of article and expansion around new focus (non-admin closure). Moogwrench (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh comics[edit]

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

No evidence that there is, or ever has been, a notable distinct Welsh comics industry/scene. About 90% of the article refers to varying degrees of passing reference to Wales in comics published in other countries. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep the section about Welsh Language comics, delete the rest, and rename the article to the section name. A list of Welsh Language comics seems like a reasonable encyclopaedic topic to me (even if it needs radically expanding), but the rest of it seems like a random and arbitrary list of comics that happen to reference Wales or Welsh things one way or another, which looks unworkable. Should someone fancy rescuing this, I'll have another look. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As above - Keep the section about Welsh Language comics, delete the rest, and rename the article to the section name. I've no time now, but I've started to list possible content expansion in the article's talk page.--Rhyswynne (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was/is a notable Welsh comics industry, it obviously doesn't get much coverage outside Wales. Cut out the mentions of Welsh characters from American comics and make this an article about Welsh comics. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jyjou*[edit]

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

Biography without sources. Google results are almost all written the same way, which suggests spam. Comte0 (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the article was copied from the other sources? The article's been up long enough for it to be Wikipedia cloned and plagiarized. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, this is why I sent it to AfD instead of PROD. However, many google results appear to come from himself (this is more striking here, while trying to document a cosmopolitan article), which made me feel that wikipedia was also part of an advertising campaign. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Reliable sources Noticeboard has been notified. Comte0 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one brief mention on G News and one in G Books. Not enough secondary sources to create an article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:06, 1 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Siegler[edit]

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

One reference for this BLP, and it is not even about the person. Unlikely that notability will be established. Page editor claims the subject's bio on the U of Chicago page establishes notability, though it is biased to talk up the subject. AstroCog (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The NY Times article goes into a reasonable amount of detail about the subject, and whether it is nominally "about him" or a monetary gift that he inspired is unimportant in my opinion. The significant media coverage of him in connection with this gift, combined with a large enough body of work to meet criterion #1 of WP:ACADEMIC [24] seals this one for me. VQuakr (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (author) - subject is definitely notable with criterion #5 (distinguished professor[25]) of WP:PROF. Jesanj (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per VQuakr and Jesanj. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a GS h index of 47 which gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. An absurd nomination and a trout for the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Not a great article yet, perhaps, but the subject is clearly a notable academic, as pointed out above. Let it grow, let it grow, let it grow. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough. I can go ahead and withdraw this AfD nomination since it looks like a snowball keep. AstroCog (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 except NK Višnjevac and NK Draga. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of a bit of a botched AfD procedure that I took the time to correct, I'm also taking the liberty to also amend the phrasing of the result - there is no consensus for NK Višnjevac and NK Draga because three people did not amend their delete opinion, while four did. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NK Višnjevac[edit]

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

A bunch of non-notable football club stubs created by Cro ed (talk · contribs). They are all currently playing in Croatian third level, none of them have ever appeared in the national cup or the Croatian top level league and thus they all fail WP:FOOTYN. Timbouctou (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's all a product of filling out the red links in Template:Treća HNL? Should we delink them then, or even remove the whole navbox? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the template about a year ago but the non-notables were not red-linked specifically for this reason. Over half of the clubs in third level had articles so it made sense to create a template to facilitate navigation. However, the league expanded to four divisions in the meantime and my guess is that the ratio changed in favour of non-notables. So yes, deleting the template is a good idea because it seems to have lost its purpose. Timbouctou (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No evidence that these teams meet notability criteria. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - No sources to demonstrate notability. --Noleander (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, including the template box - As above. Neutrality^talk 07:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, incl. template - In addition to nominator's rationale, no assertion in any of the articles of meeting WP:CLUB. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a minute. According to Treća HNL two of these clubs have actually won a third division title, and I have verified this with the RSSSF. That's a very reasonable claim to notability, particularly when you consider that the "bar" for English football is any club which has ever competed in the top ten tiers, the FA Cup or FA Vase. I would therefore suggest that we keep NK Višnjevac and NK Draga, but delete the rest. —WFC— 21:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with the deletion of the template btw. —WFC— 21:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with WFC. Leaving the 3rd league champions may not be a bad idea. However, the have none sources in their articles... FkpCascais (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've referenced this specific fact, and tagged both with {{refimprove}}. —WFC— 21:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right WFC, I only looked for these clubs in cup and league archives and I didn't notice Draga and Višnjevac were 3. HNL winners in 2003–04. However weak their claim to fame may be, the achievement alone seems enough to presume notability. I agree with keeping those two. Timbouctou (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NK Višnjevac and NK Draga, but delete the rest, per EFC's research & reasoning. Giant Snowman 12:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on above According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, on which WP:NFOOTY ("fully professional league") is partly based, the Croation 3rd Division is not listed as a fully pro league and thus winning that division would not count as granting notability in itself. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is true for players who have played for the clubs – even during the championship winning seasons – but not the clubs themselves. A player might not be notable for playing at a semi-professional club, but the club may nonetheless meet the GNG. In my judgement, and that of others who have commented since my initial post, it can be assumed that the winner of the third division will have received significant coverage in reliable sources. —WFC— 13:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assumed notability is fine for keeping an article from being CSD'd or PROD'ed but as an AFD has been called, actual notability really needs to be demonstrated. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. But the achievement has been demonstrated, and four people including the original nominator accept it as something which couldn't plausibly have failed to achieve significant coverage. Systemic bias is something worth bearing in mind: it is not plausible that an English, Scottish or American club of equivalent stature would be deleted. Provided the balance of probability is strong enough, it makes sense to err on the side of keeping. I would note that many of the other clubs are probably of similar stature, but due to the absence of a strong presumption of notability I have !voted delete. —WFC— 14:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried verifying WP:GNG by googling in Croatian to find local sources, but it's very hard to google for NK Draga's third league feat in Croatian, because clubs aren't always referred to with the NK prefix, and the word "draga" itself happens to match a very common Croatian adjective (meaning 'dear'), so the search engine's (otherwise useful) declension rules kick in and the search result becomes completely useless. It does seem fishy that analogous searches for NK Višnjevac don't find anything, either - I tried (without quotes) "višnjevac prvi u trećoj ligi" and "višnjevac osvojio treću ligu". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NK Višnjevac and NK Draga - As stated above, winning the Croatian third division appears to confer notability. Delete the rest. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 1 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 - author blanked it but there are several other delete reasons - let's be gentle and say "original research". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin-Madaris Proposal[edit]

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

This may be valid information but the title of it is not reflective of the content of the article. Also, reads a lot like a news release. Originally, this article was PRODed due to the fact that it was mostly original research, but even if this doesn't apply any more, too little content remains for this to even constitute a stub. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that's left of the article is a paragraph that poorly duplicates OPERA experiment and neutrino#speed, and the article's name, which was made up in school one day by the initial editor. [26]. Delete with prejudice. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article appears to be pure OR. No sources whatsoever. --Noleander (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The author's personal view on a recent news flash. Original research. No sources, created by wp:SPA

71.75.76.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

174.252.181.231 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

65.41.184.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

174.252.159.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

149.168.240.6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Note this request msg on my talk page: "I'm having a problem posting my scientific proposal to explain the ability of neutrinos to exceed the speed of light."

DVdm (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Apparently the creator of the article has blanked it. So I have db-g7'd it. DVdm (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subsea Valley[edit]

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

Without any significant reference. It seems insignificant. Day000Walker (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tried hard but failed to get any reference. It also lacks notability.

I will add references in a bit. Lukas Staniszewski

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google news shows several articles about this consortium or organization, but mostly in Norwegian. Please see WP:BEFORE. "It seems insignificant" is not a valid reason for deletion. Pburka (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even in Google news I don't see sufficient mention by independent sources to satisfy WP:ORG. This consortium/company was formed only one year ago; it is young: it may have more sources next year. --Noleander (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No problem finding extensive news hits on this organization in the news using Atekst search engine. Hits include the article "Sikrer oljeoppdrag" on 26 August 2011 in Budstikka and "Inn i subsea valley" in Telemarksavisa on 25 May 2011. My main concern is not notability, but that the article is written in a promotional way, and that it is not clear that the subject of the article is an organization, not a geographical area. As it stands right now, it could be deleted for being inherently POV, but that is nothing a restructuring and copyedit couldn't fix. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The presence of reliable sources within articles and article prose is not a valid argument for article deletion. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources. 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) 05:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subsea Valley is a new organization, and therefore the news are limited. However while searching for 'Subsea Valley' in google, several news and articles pop-up. News about the organization appear in reliable secondary sources such as: Offshore.no, "Subsea Technology – Norwegian and International Perspectivesmnt" by The Norwegian Oil department and MaritimeandEnergy.com. Additionally most companies listed within the organization have news about the participation on their corporate websites. I will edit the issue of promotional writing. Lukas.staniszewski (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'm just not seeing any sources. There are only a couple in Google News, and most of the links above are broken. A couple are in Norwegian, and when I translat them, it looks like this company is mentioned only in passing. I don't see a single secondary source anywhere that is about the company. Nor do I see, say, 100 sources that mention the company in a minor way. Instead I see just a few sources that mention the company in a minor way. --Noleander (talk) 06:05, 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, v/r - T P 03:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request - Can some "keep" editor please provide some English language translations from, say, the best 2 or 3 secondary sources that talk about this company. And, please explain how the company is presented in the source: is the source about Subsea Valley? or is the source just mentioning Subsea Valley in passing? --Noleander (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The three central companies in this group, supply 60-70% of the world market for subsea equipment. Yes, they are notable. Dream Focus 23:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as pointed of by JoannaSerah the claims in the article are not verifiable J04n(talk page) 23:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen B. Jacobsohn[edit]

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

This unreferenced BLP is currently in CSD A7 territory, but claims of notability have been removed as being likely hoaxes. I don't know enough about US politics to make the call, but see the talk page for another editors investigations. I could find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article states that he was a city councilman in the 1980s in Charlotte, North Carolina which is the largest city in that state and the 17th largest in the United States. If that's true, he may meet WP:POLITICIAN. I haven't yet been able to find reliable sources, but perhaps the Charlotte newspapers of the 1980s haven't been digitized in a form accessible to Google searches. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing is cited. The article previously also stated that he was a member of the NC state legislature and was Speaker of the House. This could not be true as other people were verifiably in those positions (see article talk page). I did not remove about the city council because I haven't found anything confirming nor denying this, however, per WP:BLP that means it should be taken off there anyway. I don't think the person really served and don't know that he really exists. I believe this is completely a hoax article. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sino Japanese Wars and Conflicts[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic, pointless article. Alex^{discussion ★} 12:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete The article's in a horrible state, but that's not in itself a reason for deletion. I'd argue that the topic is definitely notable. However, virtually all the potential content could find an equally good home at Sino-Japanese relations, which already has sections on all major conflicts between the two nations. Hence, no need for this possibly coat-rack article. Yunshui (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If u all think that this is not a notable article then first delete Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. It is a notable including military history of both countries. PRC and Japan have fought more wars then India and Pakistan. It is an artilce relating to military and military of both countries.--Jozoisis (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author should have created it in sandbox.--Day000Walker (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The wiki on "Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts" is about armed clashes and wars that have happened since 1947 between two clearly identified modern states whose relationship has been mainly characterized by conflict. In this wiki, however, "China" and "Japan" refer to a large number of different polities whose relations did not become mainly conflictual until the very late 19th century. Apart from the two Sino-Japanese Wars of 1894-1895 and 1937-1945, we have: a seventh-century battle that did not even mainly oppose "China" and "Japan"; Wokou piracy (certainly not a conflict between China and Japan, since no Japanese state was involved, and because the Wokou also counted Chinese and Koreans among their ranks); the Mongol invasions of Japan (why the Mongol Empire should represent "China" is not explained); the Japanese invasions of Korea in 1592 and 1598 (a real war); and a boat collision incident that took place in 2010. I know of no reliable source that could conceivably discuss all these together. Even if we got rid of the atrocious English, removed the main editor's personal analysis ("China was like one of the superpowers on Earth in early times"; "the causes of many wars become Korea and Taiwan"), and added meaningful and well-referenced information on each event, we would only end up with a WP:COATRACK, that is, an "excessive focus on one aspect of the subject" of Sino-Japanese relations. Excessive focus on conflict in Sino-Japanese relations would violate WP:NPOV, and the miscellaneous nature of the events discussed would constitute either WP:original research or WP:SYNTHESIS. A page which, even in the best case scenario, would still violate two of Wikipedia's three content policies (WP:NPOV and WP:NOR) should clearly be deleted. Madalibi (talk) 10:11, 18 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, v/r - T P 03:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any source that treat this group of conflicts as an organic whole. This assortment is better handled as a Category or List. Here are some categories that already exist:

Here are two categories that list the conflicts between two groups:

So perhaps a new category could be created Category:Wars between China and Japan. --Noleander (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of further reading and a synthesis/collation/metastudy of conflicts between 1900 China and 1900 Japan. POV pushing article trying to highlight a original-research deduction of perpetual hatred between these 2 culture.Curb Chain (talk) 12:17, 1 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. Richwales (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show[edit]

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

Unsalvageable spam about non-notable show. Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based upon talk page research here [27] as well as my own inability to turn up any significant reliable source coverage that was not only promotional material from the lead-up to the event it appears this show is non-notable for Wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the one who originally complained about this article's neutrality at the help desk.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now have referenced thoroughly and cited all sources (deleted the references which had nothing to do with the show). The article looks very different. Thanks Jasper Deng and ConcernedVancouverite - you are right. It does read better. Please review it for non-deletion. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y — Domenico.y (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I just would like to say that this article is taking up most of my time and I can't edit other articles without this matter being solved and corrected. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Keep: Now, after deleting the article and re-starting it again on 07:31, 25 September 2011, I have referenced thoroughly and cited all sources. It is a notable article.

Domenico.y (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure any of those references are reliable. Google searches, blogs, LinkedIn, the organizatiion's website itself (which is the vast majority of the sourcing) are not reliable sources. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and required action: I used that in addition: the organizatiion's website itself refers back to the other refrences in 'Press' because there are articles on the 'press' page which they have put up, Mark of the Beast. Should I take the organizatiion's website itself then? What is the consensus? Thanks Domenico.y (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

I have taken out the majority of the the organizatiion's website itself links now. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

If the website has links to reliable sources, then using the reliable sources instead of linking to the website would be more appropriate. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's spam, albeit with some references. ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Admin,

Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show is a notable article, the show started in Australia (citing the references I have put, not many other fashion shows get this amount of press and post-press). And the show has changed the course of history for 2 famous Australian fashion designers' designs: Finetti and Lo Sordo.

ConcernedVancouverite said that he has researched and said I have not found "coverage that was not only promotional material from the lead-up to the event". That is why I put in references post show on ABC TV and The Fashion Consultancy after it happened. ABC TV is big in Australia. The fact that famous Australian fashion designers Finetti and Lo Sordo held a fashion show one month after the BBAC show at Australia Fashion Week with exactly the same prints that they collaborated with artists in the BBAC show, it is obvious that they took inspiration from the show, makes it noteworthy and reliable source. So there is the post-press in the form of art and fashion design collaborated for these 2 fashion designers. If Finetti and Lo Sordo want to neglect the BBAC show and give all credit to themselves, then ok but it is apparent through the course of this article, what happened. It is a bit less obvious in the text of this article, so how do I made that more obvious?

I have put in references in nearly each sentence, not just from the organisation's website, proving that the research is reliable and true. Explain to me why an article like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikki_Ziegler is not nominated for deletion in 2008 and I only came across this article in September 2011 and tagged it {{noteable}} because it makes claims that are not referenced and in my opinion, not true?

Assist me to improve the article please and save it from deletion. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Delete. It's spam. Changing a sentence from "The Sydney Morning Herald said" to "The Sydney Morning Herald interviewed Reichman and she said" changed the sentence from a lie into truth, but didn't make it any more appropriate for an encyclopaedic article, or to establish notability. There is nothing relevant to say about the Sydney Morning Herald's coverage, and ditto most of the other reliable references. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine said that you were too biased of this article to edit it written up in your previous comments, then you are commenting on it's deletion?

~~Keep~~ the article but assist and help me with it please.

Are you an Australian? Can you cite a show which changed the course of history for 2 famous Australian fashion designers' designs: Finetti and Lo Sordo?

The SMH is a very tiny part of the article. The fact that the SMH mentioned it is a feat for the organiser. I was trying to establish notably with the article I created...

Are you an Admin? If so, how do you think I should change the article to make it salvageable? Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Keep Google news archive search reveals only one hit. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/designers-put-their-art-into-show/story-e6frg6nf-1225831959837 But check the official website, and they list and show screenshots of coverage they have gotten in the press. http://beingbornagain.net/buttons/Press.html Ample coverage has been found. Dream Focus 11:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - supposed clippings and the like hosted on the subject's own website do not meet our standards of verifiability and reliable sourcing, in this era of Photoshop and Final Cut Pro. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dreamfocus, the bulk of "coverage" on that page is event announcements, and some of the "coverage" there is not about the show itself, but the brand. Can you please highlight which specific coverage you feel is sufficient reliable source coverage to establish notability from that promotional page provided by the subject in question? Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – this is exactly why there must be 1) significant 2) reliable 3) third party coverage. Each part needs to be there. We don't take the subject's word for much at all. JFHJr (㊟) 00:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm to believe that every single newspaper and magazine shown there was simple photoshopped, and that all the references mentioned in the article quoting interviewers from various sources are all fake? That the only real one was the one I linked to, and the rest is just an elaborate scam? I just spend a few minutes searching various sources cited, and found their webpages slow loading, and they not archiving everything, or requiring you to pay to see their archive. The information in the article is referenced, its just not able to be confirmed by online sources. Dream Focus 01:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This and a handful of other non-notable articles centered on Davina Reichman should probably go. Shockingly, they seem to have the same major contributors. WP:NN and WP:ORG both unambiguously indicate this particular article is not notable; a stand alone article on a non-notable subject is unencyclopedic. JFHJr (㊟) 00:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:GNG. 1 gnews hit which is its own website [28] and nothing on a major Australian news website [29]. long winded arguments trying to defend this article's existence indicate a conflict of interest. this is an issue as WP is being used as a vehicle to promote a non notable entity. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – anyone notice Being Born Again Show, previously deleted? Looks like this isn't the org's first chance. JFHJr (㊟) 07:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a speed delete which the administrator said was a Wikipedia:CSD#G8 case. That means it was just a broken redirect there, not an actual article. Dream Focus 08:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had a look and did what I could for the article, and I don't think that the event is particularly notable. In particular, I am still concerned that there are so few sources available on the Manhattan show, and a lack of post-event sources for the Sydney one. That said, in the end the GNG requires non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, and I think it just gets through there. In particular, the articles in The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald are enough to meet the GNG, at least when combined with the Art Nation coverage. I'm not so impressed by The Wentworth Courier, as that doesn't really speak to notability for me, nor the Financial Times, but it does seem from the website there there may be other sources available offline. In all: it was worth bringing here, I don't think at the moment there is room for it to grow beyond the start that it is now, but I'm going with keep as it seems to be on the right side of the GNG. - Bilby (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Goodvac's arguments are very strong, but there is sufficient disagreement about whether the sources actually all fail GNG to put this AfD squarely in "no consensus" territory. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf Organization[edit]

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

No returns to support independent wikipedia notability that raises above WP:ORG or for which there is significant coverage in independent externals to a level that raises above the WP:GNG - Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. In fact ( contact ) 09:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —In fact ( contact ) 21:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Slight merge to Persian Gulf naming dispute. The significance of this group appears to be as a group of Iranians, many living outside Iran, who are trying to preserve and promote the use of the term "Persian Gulf". As such, their notability is basically in connection with the naming dispute. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the current page redirects to there? Mehran ^Debate 05:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, a merge would imply a redirect of the current title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree with merging, as this organization is notable enough to have its own article. Regards, In fact ( contact ) 10:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I oppose a merge, as nothing about this organization is known through significant, independent reliable sources. Goodvac (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough for Wikipedia -- Marmoulak (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization's website ranks No.7 when the word Persian Gulf is searched in Google. Just to remind you that It used to rank the second at the time which the website was not down. In fact ( contact ) 10:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh??!! What are you talking about?? it doesn't even rank in the top 100 for me. Google factors in the number of times you have visited a website when ranking it! just because you see it in the first page of a google search, that doesn't mean others will see it as well; apparently you have been visiting this website a lot! And since when notability is measured by the so-called google search "rank"??!! Have you ever read Wikipedia's guidelines on notablilty?! By the way, Alexa ranks the website at 407,000 -- Marmoulak (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://www.greenprophet.com/2009/04/persian-gulf-organization/ is significant coverage of the organization. If someone who knows their language could search for it, perhaps they'd find more results. Dream Focus 19:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

greenprophet.com is not notable itself, let alone having the ability to give notability by briefly mentioning another website! -- Marmoulak (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is notable. Read their about page. "Green Prophet has been featured on the world’s most influential media outlets including Al Jazeera, AOL News, TIME Magazine, the NY Times and dozens more, linking us as the definitive source of green news for the Middle East and North Africa region." And they only allow content for their staff writers so they are a reliable source. Dream Focus 00:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to have a bad habit of basing your arguments on self-published questionable sources! Green Prophet claims to be somewhat notable, but there is no evidence of it being so. Even if we assume that Green Prophet is remotely notable, its brief mention of this organization by no means gives it any kind of notability. Persian Gulf Organization website does not meet any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Once again, your total lack of regard for Wikipedia's clear rules and guidelines is sad and unfortunate -- Marmoulak (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Green Prophet is notable, based on the coverage it gets from major news sources. Its founder and main writer also contributes articles to the Huffington Post. Dream Focus 13:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well known enough in Iranian community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have heard of it is not a reason for wikipedia to host an article about it. Off2riorob (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you search for its name in Arabic, and see if any newspapers or magazines have mentioned it? Dream Focus 13:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching in Persian website results in many links, for instance in this website , Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh (the advisor of this organization) is talking about it. In fact ( contact ) 10:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again another note from Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh about Persian Gulf Online Organization in this page. In fact ( contact ) 10:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotion of a non-notable advocacy group; single source provided doesn't rise above the level of an incidental random reference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, This is not promotional or non-notable, you can check the references and see what websites has considered it. Mehran ^Debate 19:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources have considered this organization in detail. Goodvac (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note the founder of the webpage Mohammad Ala- has been deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a simple webpage, but an Online Organization and an NGO. BTW, an organization's notabilty is not only based on its founder. In that case, notable Pejman Akbarzadeh is a member of this organization. In fact ( contact ) 10:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization is highly notable and well known for middle east people. Unfortunately there is unintentionally discrimination against such these articles, mostly from western users. Of course we can't expect the notability of NATO or WTO for this article, but I can list tens of organizations in west, that eastern people are completely unaware about them. We must keep in mind that English Wikipedia is an international one, not only for English-speaking people.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This vote essentially boils down to WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. What are the reliable sources that enable this organization to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG? Goodvac (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I checked the article now, it contains enough independent reliable sources to meet WP:ORG. Aarash (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain which sources in the article meet WP:ORG#Primary criteria. Goodvac (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

greenprophet.com is both reliable and independent. The source's topic is PGO. It is focussing on the organization.
The answer to your vote underneath: It is the source which has to be and of course is independent , not Daniel Pourkesali or his statement in the source. In fact ( contact ) 19:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your vote underneath about ghasedakonline.com. Although It has not mainly mentioned PGO, but this source has proved the notability of this organization by simply saying "The first". The first Online Organization regarding Persian Gulf is Persian Gulf Online Organization, as this independent reliable source has clearly mentioned. In fact ( contact ) 20:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, your assessment of these sources is utterly erroneous.

The Green Prophet article is an interview of Daniel M. Pourkesali. The interview is focused on the use of the name "Persian Gulf", not on the Persian Gulf Organization. The organization is mentioned in passing. Even if it were not merely a trivial mention, this source would not establish notability because Pourkesali is affiliated with the organization and is not independent. We cannot use him as a gauge of the organization's notability.
It does not matter where the content is hosted. Daniel Pourkesali wrote the article; therefore, he is the source. The source is therefore not independent.
"The first site I came across was, The Persian Gulf Taskforce..." Saying that the word "first" establishes notability is ludicrous. Also, please don't misrepresent the source. The author said the Persian Gulf Taskforce was the "first site I came across". This does not mean the "first Online Organization regarding Persian Gulf".

Please reacquaint yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Goodvac (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first answer to you before I go any further, Please read the article at least for one time, before making comments and voting; PGTF is another name of the PGO ( mentioned in the first line of the article) After doing this very first step, start talking about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, PLEASE. In fact ( contact ) 06:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sources says: "And while surfing the net I came across two sites, which I found to be very interesting.

The first site I came across was, The Persian Gulf Taskforce, http://www.persiangulfonline.org/index.htm, an organization who sole dedication is to preserving the correct name of the Persian Gulf. "

As I have stated before, when the website was fully active, it used to be the 1st or the 2nd result for searching Persian Gulf. In fact ( contact ) 07:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The website has been down for more that 6 months, but still it ranks the 5th when searching Persian Gulf in Google. (Not considering image and news results, if you consider them as well, it ranks number 7) In fact ( contact ) 07:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any way, you are right, The source is not saying that The website is the first online organization regarding Persian Gulf.(my mistake, sorry.)

The source says: two websites was found regarding that matter. The first one is PGO/PGTF.

But my mistake has got nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as you have mentioned above. In fact ( contact ) 08:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources in the article are passing mentions of the subject. Analyzing each source through the lens of the WP:GNG:
- "The Arabian Gulf?" does not discuss the Persian Gulf Organization in depth. The only relevant content is: "The first site I came across was, The Persian Gulf Taskforce, http://www.persiangulfonline.org/index.htm, an organization who sole dedication is to preserving the correct name of the Persian Gulf." This passing mention does not establish notability.
- "We Stand Corrected: Daniel Pourkesali From the Persian Gulf Organization On The Importance of Names" may well be reliable, as Dream Focus (talk · contribs) states above, but this source is not independent. The interviewee, Daniel Pourkesali, who is affiliated with the Persian Gulf Organization, states, "Persian Gulf Organization (PGO) is made of many volunteer individuals across the globe dedicated to the defense and preservation of the historic name of the Persian Gulf through monitoring of electronic and other published media and news articles." A statement from someone affiliated with the organization cannot be used to establish notability.
- "An Iran we could love" consists of a reprinted letter, signed by "Professor Mohammad Ala, Persian Gulf Task Force" inter alios. This is a passing mention.
- "„Die Kinder Adams sind aus einem Stoff gemacht“: Die iranische Zivilgesellschaft schützen" consists of a reprinted letter, signed by "Prof. Dr. Mohammad Ala, Persian Gulf Taskforce & Iran Heritage" inter alios. This is a passing mention.
- "Statement by a Group of Iranian Anti-war Activists about Iran’s Presidential Elections"—see "An Iran we could love".
- "Distorting the Name of the 'Persian Gulf' Continues"—whose author, Pejman Akbarzadeh, is "a member of 'Artists Without Frontiers' and the 'Persian Gulf Organization''s Rep. in Amsterdan and Tehran"—is a passing mention.
- "Name of 'Persian Gulf' registered in 1,800 maps" is a forum post that links to an article by Pejman Akbarzadeh. Forums are not reliable, and the article by Pejman Akbarzadeh does not discuss the Persian Gulf Organization.
- "Shahram Mostarshed" is a short biography of a member of the Persian Gulf Task Force. This does not constitute significant coverage, as nothing about the organization is discussed.
- "British Airways recognizes the Persian Gulf" states, "Head of IIC's Persian Gulf Taskforce, Javad Fakherzadeh wrote British Airways and pointed out that the historically correct name of the waters is the Persian Gulf." This source is insignificant, not discussing the Taskforce in depth.
- "CASMII Organization" lists the CASMII Advisory Board, including "Mr. Javad Fakharzadeh is founder and Board Member of Persian Gulf Online organization" and "Mr. Shahram Mostarshed is an anti-war activist who has been involved in several campaigns in the past decade, including Iranians for International Cooperation (IIC) and the Persian Gulf Task Force (PGTF)". These passing mentions do not establish notability.
- "Sanctions as Warfare" is written by Daniel M Pourkesali, who is not independent of the organization.

In sum, there are no significant, independent reliable sources covering the Persian Gulf Online organization. Goodvac (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why did they use PGFT if it' not notable? Anyway, I will add more sources which explains more about PGFT, Thanks. Mehran ^Debate 03:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To whom are you referring with "they"? Mere republishing and quoting of articles written by people associated with the organization does not establish notability. I will comment on the additional sources shortly, if I get to it today. Goodvac (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"They" refers to the other sources that considered PGO and know it as a notable NGO, e.g. two of them wrote that PGO had sent some letters to Army News and British Airways. It shows that this is notable enough and some reliable sources used it in their news, if not they didn't use it in their articles. Mehran ^Debate 08:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That unreliable, non-independent sources report that this organization "sent some letters to Army News and British Airways" does not confer notability upon the organization. I can send some letters to Army News and British Airways and have it reported by unreliable sources. Does that make me notable? Your position is absurd. None of the sources directly discuss the organization. Goodvac (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on additional sources The sources added by Mehran (talk · contribs) are trivial mentions.
- "Iran Heritage, Persian Gulf Online, and Iran Alliance 2008 Scholarship and Merit Awards" is a congratulatory message by Mohammad Ala and Javad Fakharzadeh, both of whom are affiliated with the Persian Gulf Organization. This source is not independent. Also, this article is used to source the first sentence of the article: "non-political, non-partisan and non-religious and non-governmental entity comprised of a network of volunteers across the globe dedicated to preserving and protecting the historical name of Persian Gulf". This is a glaring copyright violation, verbatim from the source.
- "Persian Gulf Organization PGO Charity In Alhambra California" is an editable directory of charities—absolutely not reliable. Furthermore, the page states, "Our taskforce (PGTF) members maintain a close watch on ... any misuse of the only legal term for this body of water.... We have volunteer opportunities available. Please visit our website for more information" (my bolding). This is not an independent source, as it was written by the organization.
- "حذف نام خلیج فارس در موسسه هارپركالینز لندن" is another passing mention.
- "Pejman Akbarzadeh Official Website" is another passing mention. The focus of the page is on Pejman Akbarzadeh's life, not on the organization.

I firmly stand behind my position that this organization is not notable and the article should be deleted. Goodvac (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"حذف نام خلیج فارس در موسسه هارپركالینز لندن" is saying that PGO's actions regarding defending Persian Gulf's name about National Geography influenced The government of Iran to act accordingly. This organization's efforts as an NGO with the help of other organizations and people around the world brought a success into this topic. This was the summary of what that source has stated. This Online Organization is pretty much notable, indeed, as it has made the government of one country to react. In fact ( contact ) 09:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course it's notable enough as I said above. I respect Goodvac's opinion, but check the sources a little deeply. Another case is British Airways recognizes the Persian Gulf, it was said in this page that Head of IIC’s Persian Gulf Taskforce, Javad Fakherzadeh wrote British Airways and pointed out that the historically correct name of the waters is the Persian Gulf and going on: Two weeks later, British Airways acknowledged their mistake and provided written guarantees that their onboard displays would be corrected. You can also see this matter in the other sources. PGO has a very wide effects in Iran's government and British Airways and Army News, etc. and their reaction is considerable to name this organization "Notable". Mehran ^Debate 11:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the group has been quite active in Persian Gulf studies and also its website is full of information and maps. Why it should be deleted? Thanks.--Discodancer2000 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for retention. The article should be deleted simply because it fails the WP:GNG. Goodvac (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Some changes was done in the article and new sources with new information was added to the article. Mehran ^Debate 15:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recent sources shows that PGO is completely notable in Iran and the government officially knows it as an effective organization in Persian Gulf related subjects. I'm searching for more events about it and will add them to the article. Fortunately there are many non-English reliable sources that talk about PGO and we can use them and I wasn't aware of them! Mehran ^Debate 17:53, 1 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. No consensus without prejudice on Petra Cicvarić and Marija Omaljev-Grbić. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matko Knešaurek[edit]

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

A Croatian actor. Total experience is a combined total of two TV episodes and doing theatre in college. Speedy was declined. Here is the google translate of the biography reference in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The newbie Franko1212 (talk · contribs) recently created articles for a lot of stuff related to a soap opera Ruža vjetrova that just started airing this autumn on RTL Televizija. Some of those actors are notable in their own right, but the whole thing seems overly enthusiastic and without regard to WP:N. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went through his contribs and noticed he even created articles on five characters in the series plus about a dozen other BLPs of actors of Knešaurek's calibre (always referenced by just an IMDb link). I took the liberty of adding them to this AfD as all of them seem to fail WP:ENTERTAINER.

Anja Alač (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marko Čabov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Petra Cicvarić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Petar Cvirn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Matea Elezović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Petra Krolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jasna Malec Utrobičić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marija Omaljev-Grbić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roko Sikavica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tamara Šoletić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can't seem to find any guideline for fictional characters so I'll just start another AfD for them to get others' opinion. Timbouctou (talk) 01:49, 18 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, v/r - T P 00:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted per additional articles w/o additional discussion.--v/r - T P 00:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These actors do not meet WP notability guidelines. All these articles should be deleted, and any significant material should be merged into articles on the TV shows, such as Ruža vjetrova. --Noleander (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merging/redirecting as appropriate) most, keep Petra C. and Marija, The arguments and available sourcing I can find for most of these actors seems to argue against notability. However, I do see some potential signs of notability for Petra Cicvarić (e.g., [30]), and in particular Marija Omaljev-Grbić, (e.g., [31], [32], ), and as a result I am defaulting to keep on those unless we have a a fuller discussion regarding the specific sources for those two actors. --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first article from Nacional's web site says at the bottom "read the whole text in the printed edition of Extra", and the latter magazine is a tabloid IIRC, so it's not necessarily worth much. I googled the name and found a fair bit more similar (worthless) coverage, but then again also one Slobodna Dalmacija interview [33] and one article about a theatre play she acted in. My overall reaction is still no more than a "meh", because while specific not-entirely-trivial interviews help demonstrate some general notability (at least 1 journalist and at least 1 editor thought a substantial chunk of their readership would want to read such a thing at the given point in time), but this publicity doesn't necessarily provide a value judgement on the person's true notability - they do not tend to provide any sort of independent analysis of the person's work. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrah White[edit]

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

Bio (or, given the comment "an article written about me" on its talkpage, Autobio) of an allegedly notable conspiracy theorist. The only references in the article are self-produced. No apparent Web references from reliable sources. Fails WP:RS and WP:BLP, probably WP:AB as well. Proposed deletion tag has been removed by Annunakiownage so I'm bringing this to AfD Tonywalton ^Talk 00:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources of either Jarrah White or MoonFaker. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete—there is this, although it is the absolute only reliable source i could find, and it's not enough; just a passing mention. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. I find few mentions in reliable sources, and all those appear trivial, as indicated above. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, all of you are wrong. Please provide what YOU think is a reliable source (even though four were provided) and they will be added onto the page. If you fail to do this, you will be reported to wikipedia for unlawful termination. The authorities may become involved also. Please provide information in the next 24 hours or I will personally report you to law enforcement. What you are doing is illegal, as reliable sources have been submitted. The person meets the notable person requirement as he is a "creative professional". His documentary films can be purchased over the internet and he is the contributing writer for the Moon hoax website. In fact, White himself owns the rights to nearly the entire theory. He is the sole copyright owner of Ralph Rene's "NASA Mooned AMERICA!"

So, please remove the AfD and give an example of what you consider reliable or you'll be reported to wiki and the police. Good day. I'm not going to show any mercy in reporting you and I will have this page kept up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.170.22 (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article does not fail WP:AB as it is not written about myself. To blatantly lie to the wikipedia community is both criminal and against the website's policy. Please provide evidence this article was written about myself as I live halfway across the world from Jarrah White. Until you do so, this will just be one more bold-faced lie.

Comment: IP has been blocked for the duration of this AfD for egregious violation of WP:NLT. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My research shows that this person does not meet WP notability guidelines. His productions named "MoonFaker" might (or might not) meet the notability guidelines, so any "keep" editors may want to create an article on that topic, but even the sources for MoonFaker look rather marginal, but that would be another AfD. --Noleander (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do I suspect this may be autobiographical? The creator of the article, Annunakiownage, refers to the article as being "about me" here. Tonywalton ^Talk 07:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete no reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. Desperate attempts to threaten others only confirm to me the clear conflict of interest here and WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment—although i don't think wp needs article Jarrah White, it may be true that wp needs article Wikipedian conspiracy to suppress article on Jarrah White and subsequent dire consequences thereof, in which case this afd debate may end up being an important source for future editors!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the page redirect to Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories? There is a section there "Conspiracists and their main proposals" where Jarrah White might one day be added if he ever becomes notable enough to warrant his own entry. There is nothing notable about him other than his advocacy of the moon hoax. 80.3.70.194 (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You said it - "there is nothing notable". Many thousands of people worldwide advocate the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory. Should my mate Chris, who's often said "he reckons they never landed on the moon" after a few pints have an article, even a redirect? I don't think so. (Nor, FWIW, does he). The subject of an article, even a redirect, needs to satisfy minimal criteria at least. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. No notability, no need for the article on this particular conspiracy theorist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Hour (band)[edit]

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

A band. Unable to find reliable sources about the band. First album will be released at a later date. Fails WP:BAND Bgwhite (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:27, 11 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, v/r - T P 00:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found a review of their recent album by a blogger who saw them open up for the band. Men Without Hats. The link is here. I will add it to the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CQQQ1006 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find sufficient sources to satisfy WP:BAND. --Noleander (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Above blog is not a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:42, 1 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 Brotherhood of Evil. –MuZemike 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warp (comics)[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline. No significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is additionally plot only coverage and thus violates what Wikipedia is not. Simone (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a very minor "enemy" character in a comic book series. This material would be better off in a "List of ..." article. The comic book is Teen Titans, and this character is just one enemy: the full list of enemies can be seen in Template:Teen Titans ... it looks like a lot of them have their own WP articles: many of them are probably not notable and should be merged into a list. Note that the "good guys" already have a List article: List of Teen Titans members, so I suggest that a comparable List article be created for the enemies: List of Teen Titans enemies. --Noleander (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and any article about him can only be a summary-only description of a fictional work. The article itself is unreferenced so it has no verifiability to justify keeping anything. Jfgslo (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brotherhood of Evil, subject to later splitting off if the character is made more notable in the future. DS (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brotherhood of Evil. Not notable enough for a separate article. Edward321 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seems to be a consensus for merging but nowhere to merge to. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of CPU power dissipation[edit]

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

Indiscriminate unmaintainable list of information (WP:IINFO), see also WP:SALAT Ipsign (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: I've spent some time trying to remove WP:SYN from this article, but the more I worked on it, the more I realized that this list doesn't seem to belong to Wikipedia. I won't repeat arguments I've provided in nomination, but should add that as this list is non-discriminative by design, and due to number of CPUs being released, maintaining it in any meaningful shape is not feasible. Ipsign (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge - As I noted in this proposal Talk:List_of_CPU_power_dissipation/Archive_1#Merger proposal much of the material in this article duplicates information in various Wikipedia articles listing CPUs. So this article is largely duplicate coverage within Wikipedia.

Relevant material here should be added to the lists for appropriate CPUs. The article could be turned into a redirect or disambiguation page (if need the history for provenenace/copyright reasons), or deleted if the related pages already have sufficient information. Zodon (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The wattage information is very encyclopedic, but there are already other "List of ..." articles on various CPU groups. Importantly: many of those lists are missing wattage data, so a straight delete would not be beneficial to readers. Merging would be a big job: the other Lists are scattered all around, and adding new data into tables is a pain. It looks like there are over a dozen other lists. But it looks like a merger is the right thing to do for the long run. --Noleander (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - I might have thought the list might have been unmaintainable, but the current state of the list suggests otherwise; there appear to be enough people working on it that its information is relatively up-to-date. Further, unlike guidelines mentioned in WP:SALAT, power dissipation is a useful list. That being said, power dissipation is arguably better handled as just one entry in more comprehensive tables; the case for merging is credible. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge First of all, Wikipedia is not a semiconductor chip specifications catalog or datasheet depository. So, I do not know if this fits the mission of the site. If after evaluating encyclopedic value, perhaps it should be added in whole or in parts to other existing articles. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:51, 1 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 Katharine Hepburn#Relationships. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludlow Ogden Smith[edit]

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

I don't believe he is notable. The article only talks about the fact that he was married to Katharine Hepburn. This seems to be the only reason for his notability, and the bulk of that information can go on Hepburn's page. Lobo512 (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just looks like an expanded version of Katharine's "Personal life" section. Anything worth mentioning is already mentioned in that section, so I don't really see what there would be to merge, though is this maybe an appropriate situation for a redirect? - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 11:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, redirect to Hepburn may be a good option. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Katharine Hepburn#Relationships per Bkid. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Not otherwise notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 20:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard H. Tower, Jr.[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests there aren't any. From the opening paragraph at WP:N: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." It's appropriate to mention Tower in the article on gcc, a product he worked on, based on primary sources, including [34], that describe his role. But without secondary sources, a separate article on the subject himself is contraindicated by policy and guidelines. Previous AfDs in 2006 deleted, then kept the article, but as was common at the time, very little of the discussion was policy-based. Msnicki (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There are now ten inline citations, documenting who this man is. I just added a citation showing his founding director membership in the Free Software Foundation, and important institution in the movement to create, maintain, and share without charge software important to the computing community. The article was considered for GA status in the past, so it is hard to understand how it now does not have reliable secondary sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of the sources is independent. Not one. None of that is useful in establishing notability under the guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The accomplishments he has achieved listed in the article already, prove he is notable. WP:BURO WP:IAR and WP:SENSE are things you should be aware of. Dream Focus 17:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more helpful if any of that proof included an actual reliable independent secondary source or perhaps a citation to any part of the guidelines confirming that his accomplishments may be accepted in lieu of sources. Common sense is not common, which is why we have guidelines with specifics rather than deciding things just based on the number of WP:ILIKEIT !votes.
I mean no disrespect to Mr. Tower, but you raise the question of his accomplishments and I think the article seems to inflate them, perhaps due to the subject's WP:AUTO involvement in creating the article and to his relationship to the sources at FSF in the citations. Tower definitely did contribute to gcc but from [35], page 7, it's clear that that the principal author was Stallman. Tower's contribution is listed 4th and described as implementing ideas contributed by Davidson and Fraser. This is kind of an entry-level assignment. Being one of 5 contributors to an implementation of diff, a roughly 2000-line problem, also based on a published algorithm by someone else, is even less impressive. Nowhere in the guidelines do I find support for this as sufficient to establish per se or presumed notability.
The article needs WP:RS sources, it doesn't have them and I don't think they exist. The subject doesn't WP:INHERIT notability just from having worked with Stallman or on gcc. This is why the appropriate editorial treatment would be a mention in the article on gcc, not a separate article. Msnicki (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I read this article (having followed Len's notable and long-standing contributions to FSF) and agree with the "rescue" tag on it. The details in it aren't detailed enough, the sources aren't at as far a distance from the subject that you'd like them to be, and the lede is weak. The subject would be a good topic for an IEEE Annals of the History of Computing article, or an interview at the Charles Babbage Institute, and then from that a better article could be written. But keep, to be sure; Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy-based reason, e.g., any sources or a section of the guidelines you rely on to establish notability? It doesn't appear so. I agree that if only the IEEE or the Charles Babbage Institute wrote articles about him, that could make him notable. Then again, if they wrote articles about you or me, we could be notable, too. But they haven't written about any of us, so far as I know. Surely you aren't proposing we keep the article just because you hope someday, someone may write about the subject, are you? Msnicki (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KEEPCOOL. Let's assume, for a moment, that the subject of this article is not notable; that would contradict my personal experience, in that I've known of him since I first knew of the League for Programming Freedom in 1991. So then the conclusion that I draw is that the subject of the article is notable but has not yet been adequately noted in the (limited) literature that Wikipedia is good at citing, and that corresponds well with the "rescue" tag on the article. Perhaps indeed I am notable as well, it's just that no one has cared sufficiently to bother. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has a more technical meaning here than in common usage. It's not sufficient that a subject seems notable. It's all and only about whether other people not connected to the subject thought it was notable and said so in reliable independent secondary sources, though the guidelines do allow us to accept certain kinds of evidence as sufficient to establish per se or presumed notability in lieu of sources. For example, WP:SCHOLAR allows us to accept an individual as notable if "[t]he person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." or if "[t]he person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." So far as I can see, there are no WP:RS sources and none of the various alternate criteria are satisfied.
Our individual personal experiences are off the table WP:OR and irrelevant unless we happen to have had them published in reliable sources. The rescue tag is there to request that if anyone knows of a source, now's the time to cite it because we're trying to decide an AfD, where sources matter. I don't think there are any reliable independent secondary sources, no matter how hard anyone looks. Speculation that maybe they're out there but we don't know how to find them isn't good enough. Under the guidelines, without sources we can't give this subject a separate article. It's black letter. Msnicki (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW. This article has not been deleted twice, and there is only one voice (using WP:JARGON) arguing the technical merits. Please be deletionist somewhere else; I offer you Joanna Sakowicz as an acceptable alternative. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting relisting. This AfD has been listed for two weeks. I've diligently tried to find editors willing to help form a consensus by listing this on 3 different deletion lists; Gene93k added it to a fourth. Not one of the keep !votes has been able to identify a single WP:RS for this topic nor has any one of them been able to cite any part of the guidelines they believe would support a presumption of notability in lieu of sources. Instead, what's been offered has been a series of WP:ATA arguments, a wonderful mix of WP:UNRELIABLE, WP:INHERIT, WP:POSITION, WP:IKNOWIT, WP:SUPPORT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:NOTAGAIN, mixed with some unhelpful opinions about me, personally.
In closing an AfD, the closing admin is required to consider the arguments, not just count the number of !votes. This article has no reliable independent secondary sources even after 3 AfDs and the contributions of the subject himself. I assert that they do not exist. I also assert that there is no other provision in that guidelines that allows us to presume notability. I believe policy is clear, including clear from the discussion: The article should be deleted, keeping (or even, possibly, elaborating) the mentions elsewhere. But I'd still like to get an actual policy-based discussion, please. Msnicki (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your many long arguments, you haven't convinced a single person to agree with you. Everyone else says keep. The previous AFD had a much larger number of people appearing, and almost all of them said keep. [36] Accept consensus and don't keep dragging this out. Dream Focus 20:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Consciousness Sciences[edit]

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

This is a long article but nothing in it provides even marginal evidence of notability, and the information in the article is not verifiable using reputable sources. The one source that actually uses the term "Applied Consciousness Sciences" is a self-published book. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/18/2011 The article was not yet complete. Thank you for your feedback. Today added references to the different topics covered in the article. We're looking forward to the next round of feedback so we may continually improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlomonsanto (talk • contribs) 06:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - The sources show virtually no mention of the phrase "Applied Consciousness Sciences". I see a couple of minor mentions here and there, but whatever it is (and I cannot really tell what it is) it could probably just be mentioned in some other relevant WP article such as neuropsychology or consciousness or cognitive science etc. --Noleander (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "ACS which isn't considered a science as per the definition of the scientific community, is a collective name for a multiplicity of different holistic approaches that follow their own methods, techniques and theories"... well I'm glad that's got that cleared up!Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Myers[edit]

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

This unreferenced WP:BLP seems to indicate that the subject isn't notable among WP:ACADEMICs. He's held a few positions which might be considered notable, but I'm not sure, and they're not supported by references. Given the subject's common name, it's very difficult to find reliable sources. I've found a text book he's written[37] but that's about it. Pburka (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question to nominator. As far as I can see, this BLP was not prodded before being taken to AfD. Why? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP:PROD is for when an "article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate". I felt that this was was questionable so brought it here instead. Pburka (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I wrote this article. Dr. Myers was Executive Director of the Association for Business Communication for many years. That in itself is notable enough in my opinion for his inclusion at least as a small entry. What would you like me to do to make this a more suitable entry? Thank you. David A. Victor

Much like a student's essay, this article requires references from reliable sources to support its claims. Ideally, we would like to see a newspaper, magazine, or journal article profiling the subject, for example. See WP:GNG for general notability guidelines and WP:ACADEMIC for notability guidelines for professors. While being the director of an important association would confer notability, I note that the Association for Business Communication article is also completely lacking reliable references, suggesting that that association itself may not satisfy our notability guidelines. Pburka (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - based on the above search links, there seems to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and in this context, I agree with the nominator that it appears this subject topic doesn't comply with the General Notability Guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there are some arguments for merging or redirect, they can continue to be discussed locally; however, there is no consensus for deletion here. –MuZemike 20:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russet (color)[edit]

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

A bunch of articles about colors, such as this one and the most of the ones linked in that AfD, were just deleted. This is an unsourced stub about a non-notable color. It fails WP:GNG and I'd say that it might even be a WP:DICDEF. Slon02 (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Slon02 (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly referenced dicdef. No significant coverage of "russet" as a color has been presented to support the article. A given Pantone or Munsell color may have been given numerous names by merchants of paint or other colored things. Edison (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication this colour is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Unlike some of the spurious color names nominated for deletion, russet is a well-used, time-tested term of encyclopedic value. You may be familiar with russet potatoes, but the name is also employed frequently in the fields of biology, poetry, literature, fashion, textiles, and more. There's no reason it shouldn't have a place alongside other "species" of color such as fuchsia or aquamarine. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has now been revamped, with a sourced color box. The color name has been in use since 1562, and it was used by Shakespeare in his play Love's Labour's Lost. Therefore, this article should be kept and not deleted. Keraunos (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

In Love's Labour's Lost, the phrase is "russet yeas and honest kersey noes". Russet and kersey are both coarse fabrics which are being used here as a metaphor to contrast with the earlier "taffeta phrases, silken terms precise.". Such references to fabrics do not support this article about colour. Warden (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge - The information is fine, but this really needs to be consolidated into some larger article. Isn't there some WP guideline on these color articles? There are so many of them. I think they should be grouped into larger article, like "List of shades of red" or something. --Noleander (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a good model article: Variations of pink has about a dozen shades of pink. We need a comparable article that could hold russet. And there are lots of other articles like that: Variations of green, Variations of blue, etc. Russet may fit into one of them. --Noleander (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found the list of brown colors: it was in Brown. I added the russet material (from this AfD article) into that article at Brown#Russet, so this article - if the consensus so says - can now be deleted. --Noleander (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I supported deleting a number of spurious color articles recently, but in this case, russet is a word that has been used to describe a shade of brown in a wide array of reliable sources for centuries. ~~Shakespeare used the word.~~ The The Painter, Gilder, and Varnisher's Companion, for example, discusses the color russet in great detail. The The Columbian cyclopedia, Volume 26, published in 1897, has a brief article on russet mentioning both the color and the apple named after the color. If a paper encyclopedia can cover the topic, I think Wikipedia can as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen: What do you think of putting the russet material in the Brown article for now, and if some day it gets more detailed it can be split off with WP:Splitting article? --Noleander (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Russet is not a particular colour - it was a type of cheap cloth whose shade tended to vary and was commonly grey. This is now properly documented at russet and we don't need this article, whose definition is tied too much to a single proprietary source, contrary to WP:UNDUE. Warden (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As we all know, words can have more than one meaning, and I readily concede that russet also means a kind of cloth as well as a variety of apple and a variety of potato. However, I ask Noleander and Warden to read the Google link to The Painter, Gilder, and Varnisher's Companion, which discusses the color russet in great and repeated detail. If consensus disagrees with my recommendation, so be it. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that link, and I see a pretty detailed description of the color. However, that discussion is a bit over-detailed, not too encyclopedic. I'm just suggesting that WP have a uniform treatment of color articles: Start of with a subsection in the various Variations of .. articles (there are about six such articles, including Brown) and if/when the day comes that a particular minor color gets a huge section in one of those List articles, then split it off via WP:Splitting article. Russet may or may not be notable. I'm proposing a merge, so the material is kept in the encyclopedia and not lost (if a delete happens). --Noleander (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't require that our sources comply with Wikipedia's standards for encyclopedic content and the proper balance of detail. That's a goal for those of us who write and edit articles. I've never heard of deprecating a source because it is "over-detailed". I cite sources all the time that have far more detail on a topic than is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The detail of the source I mentioned simply goes toward establishing the notability of the concept of russet as a color name. I haven't given deep thought to the hierarchy of color articles on Wikipedia, but I think that separate articles are justified for color names that have widespread, recognized usage and have been discussed in detail in several reliable sources. Chartreuse (color) is another example, off the top of my head. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Russet is an old-school classic. Are there really people writing encyclopedia articles about Crayola colors?!?!? Carrite (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—i've stayed out of the great color article deletion wars because i couldn't think of any better reason to keep them than that i liked all of them, and the templates too. but this one actually satisfies the gng in my opinion. along with the various disciplines and subject areas, mentioned above, where russet is discussed as a thing in itself in reliable sources, there's also tanning, e.g. this, and this, and bunches of other discussions of how to get russet tones in leather, what the different kinds of russet tones are, how russet contrasts with other kinds of brown, and so forth. is there some reason why people wouldn't be writing encyclopedia articles about Crayola colors?!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brown#Russet as suggested. While notable, it's not something that needs its own article. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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