Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 December	6 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswat school of science[edit]

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

Two weeks since {{Not English}} added to article, should be deleted as per policy on foreign language articles not translated after two weeks. The content of the article appears to lack context anyway. Translated text (using Google): The only school which only made the study of science, Gatlodia - Paris most famous and the most time with the industry's only science course for administering Day - School -- Patchy1 22:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice towards a new article - Insufficient content to establish an appropriate article. Honestly, people fluent with Gujarati and familiar with this school are probably not fluent with English or have no access to the Internet. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a bold assunption you're making about internet access in Gujarat. Anyhow, I was planning to prod this article today since it hasn't been translated for two weeks. Therefore and because of unclear notability I agree to delete the article. De728631 (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. May be notable, but needs to be written in English. This being English Wikipedia an' all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. The article has been translated and notability has been established. If anyone disagrees, feel free to bring it back to AfD without me. -- Patchy1 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viktors Spole[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and who has not played in a fully professional league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. The article was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihards Gorkšs three years ago, on the grounds that he has played in the play-off round of the UEFA Europa League. However recent afd's (here, here and here) suggest that this does not necessarily confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - primarily fails WP:GNG; also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't feature in a match between two teams from fully pro leagues or represented his country at senior level, which means that the subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG, as he hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFOOTY. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 via CSD A7 (Non-admin closure). — sparklism ^hey! 09:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tumelo Modise[edit]

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

This subject appears to be non-notable for significant coverage in reliable sources. There also seems to be a conflict of interest, as per this user's name and the article itself. Propose deletion or redirecting. TBr and ley 21:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly as a speedy A7. Being a SAP developer and having won prizes at secondary school fall far short of any form of notability. AllyD (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (UK & Ireland)[edit]

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

Delete per ~~WP:NOTLINK.~~ teh spirit of WP:NOT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does not violate this policies there nothing on the page that is linking apart from internal links to other articles which is encouraged by MOSAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the second point at WP:NOTLINK: "Mere collections of internal links". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what is this sort of shit doing in the middle of an article namespace page: "This is a list of movies that have aired since 1993. Please put known movies in the list." (my highlighting). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if you have a problem with the shit as you put it then take it to talk, the list is not collection of internal links, it a list of programs which has the internal link to the show, end of the day it does not violate the policies no matter how you dress itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a collection of INTERNAL LINKS. (or not a hell of a lot more). Take a look at the list. What the fuck is it for? Readers don't need this sort of useless rubbish. As for the shit that I highlighted I would not piss around with talking about it on the talk page I would just go ahead and delete the line in question. You know - WP:SOFIXIT and all that. But I want to have the whole page deleted, not just some stupid fucking comment left by an editor saying "Please put known movies in the list". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because I don't think a valid reason for deletion has been stated. The portion of WP:NOTLINK that Alan Liefting is referring to specifically says it doesn't apply to lists. Calathan (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever... I have amended my reason. Is your "keep" vote still valid? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We usually have these sorts of lists. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean we should keep them. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content could certainly be culled and the crufters as usual have made a mess of things (I would kill the movie section right off; zero sources and it's easily assumed that they carry all Warner Bros.-Hanna Barbera films, and I have addressed the nom's concern by killing that line and the as-per-usual unsourced "Upcoming" line which is just WP:ADVERT material and has no place in a historical article). However the nominator has not stated a specific reason for deletion and I'm unsure why deletion is being asked for besides a non-specific cite to a policy. Nate • (chatter) 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need policies or guidelines to say that it is a useless page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you at least need a good explanation why it should be deleted. "Sprint of WP:NOT" tells me nothing. Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beep bleep beep bleep, Ring, ring. "Hey Mr Judgement. Alan again. What do you think of this pathetic list on WP?" "Giday Alan. Yeah, Good call on that one. Get it? Good judgement? Phone call? Ah, never mind..." -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to up my rationale to a Speedy Keep if you keep up this behavior and refuse to take your own nomination seriously. You've been here for years so you know better, and peppering the nom with profanity-laced responses certainly isn't changing anybody's mind at all. It's a simple question; why do you want this to be deleted? Nate • (chatter) 02:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What! You will change you !vote because of my behaviour? That is a bit WP:POINTY isn't it? And what difference will that make "Keep" vs "Speedy keep"? Anyway, the list: it is a bunch of links without any sort of annotation worth noting, it is of such low utility to the readership that the effort to maintain and update it is not warranted, there is a need to focus our efforts on "decent" stuff, there is a need to focus on the backlog, etc. And I as far as I know all of Wikipedia is not censored. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not POINTy; on principle I refuse to support nominations with nominators so intent on a delete vote they go off on those against them, or use profanity, which yes, we're not censored, but most nominations are also civilly conducted. As for the topic at hand itself, the average reader isn't going to care a whit about programming on this channel, nor need it in list form, but the expectation with television articles has a 'List of...' article included with most networks for those that are interested. This one just requires sourcing and culling, that's all, not outright deletion. Nate • (chatter) 04:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its nothing personal. Sorry is if it seems that way. I am getting angry with all the rubbish I am seeing at Category:Articles with missing files (and a lot of other reasons). Maybe it is that time of the month. Oops, shouldn't have said that. I am a feminist. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict) I personally hate lists like this, and if I were in the mood to say screw community consensus I hate this stuff, I'd vote delete, but it meets multiple criteria at WP:LISTPURP, and it's useless is not a valid argument. I don't think saying that it "violates the spirit of WP:NOT" is valid, either, in that that's an incredibly vague argument. WP:NOT lists a number of largely unrelated (that is, not connected to an overarching theme or "spirit") and very specific things that Wikipedia isn't. It's also a living thing, so it can change to include something reflective of this particular list, but I don't think it currently covers this list, and unless the nominator can effectively argue that it does I'm not inclined to agree with the rationale. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But AfDs are used to shape community consensus. Consensus is not permanent so don't feel you have to go with the status quo. If WP did not change we would still have CamelCase. LOL! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha :). Look, shoot me a message when you have raised a militia to overthrow the fraudulent tyranny of WP:LISTPURP and I will join you at the front. See? Even when I'm considering being a revolutionary I'm a status quo follower; what a disgrace. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally we only keep such lists for programming that originates on a given network. That certainly doesn't apply to any of the listed movies or syndicated reruns, and I'm not sure it applies to any of the listed series, given that this is a foreign subsidiary of an American network. How does any of this programming differ from the flagship Cartoon Network channel? Is any of it created for the UK market? In its current form, it is certainly indiscriminate. Is there a core to this list that is not? postdlf (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole fucking festering category of this sort of crap! See Category:Lists of Cartoon Network television series, including a miss-categorised talk page. But I daren't touch that of course. Might get blocked again if I fix it! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup to ensure all entries in the list are non-redirect articles, and that the list entries come from a reliable source (examples Official Site The Guardian) --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP - consensus is that the article has enough notable reliable sources, and the COI/SPA user has been blocked. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yuval Elizur[edit]

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

While references are provided, they are to sources which are self-published and/or COI sources. This page needs notable, third party sources. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Primary editor has a WP:COI and has WP:USERNAME problems; has deleted prior notices without discussion; and is disregarding notices left on their talk pages. Instead of attempting to resolve issues, they are being non responsive and editing around attempts to correct the problem. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user has reached out to me via e-mail after having his account blocked. He is wanting to be constructive in contributing. I believe this article can be saved, and as additional people are looking into it more, it appears that there is some reliable sources that establishes notability. As such, I change my !vote to KEEP Tiggerjay (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree one hundred percent there is some sort of conflict of interest going. I have to at this time say this should be a strong keep my reasons being, this person has work in the Boston Globe, Jerusalam Post. Los Angeles times, Portsmouth Times, Tuscaloosa Times and the list goes on. I do think the article needs clean up for sure, but a coi and needing clean up doesn't take away from the notability that this person does indeed seem to have. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that you can get the editor to work with you, and/or if you can do the research to establish non-original research to establish his notability, I would agree with your keep. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ per nom. not notable and full of original research. Dayyo Tim (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as likely sock of banned user Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs). CtP (t • c) 00:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Foreign Affairs, "He was Deputy Editor of Maariv, Israel's mass circulation daily, as well as Israel Correspondent for The Washington Post and The Boston Globe"; could well be notable, if we get sources other than a spam account (since blocked) of a vanity press. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample information about him in the Jerusalem Post [1]. His book is notable, so he passes WP:AUTHOR. Dream Focus 10:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject contribution to his field is amazing.Sorenaaryamanesh (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Primak[edit]

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

No claims or references supporting notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO in all regards. Article is a stub to list a company logo and website. No improvement since 2009 tag. Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 5. Snotbot t • c » 20:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO. —Theo polisme 20:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mobile Suit Gundam F91. MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F91 Gundam Formula 91[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional robot. Plot only description of a fictional element. Claritas § 19:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge into Mobile Suit Gundam F91. There's some useful content in there. —Theo polisme 21:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selective info into Mobile Suit Gundam F91 and delete the rest, describing what the gundam is in the plot in the target article I think would be useful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IBlaze[edit]

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

Unremarkable 'drug', no sources establishing notability. – Richard BB 18:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a drug? Is it a scent? Is it a company? I can't tell so Delete or improve. Celtechm (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minor product. Article is promotional in nature. No sources provided. Google search shows no independent discussions of the product that would establish notability. --Noleander (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete puff piece. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a non-notable product, no third-party coverage whatsoever as far as I can see. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let Mother Earth Speak[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of in depth independent coverage. The only apparently independent ref predates the release and appears to be based on promotional material rather than the actual album. Redirect reverted by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party coverage, and no evidence of charting. --DAJF (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did some quick research, but all I see are web mentions that are promotional in nature. Not finding any independent assessments by 3rd parties. --Noleander (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus as I read it is that Breggin is notable and his book and his ideas may be notable, but that this article isn't appropriate in its current form and doesn't meet our guidelines. No prejudice toward the creation of an article which does meet our guidelines, but it should be written from scratch. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment[edit]

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

This article is the result of a student project which has now finished; the article is about a theory that psychiatric drugs disable the brain and this theory was created and is advanced by psychiatrist Dr Peter Breggin, who promotes very polarised and biased views and is generally considered to be WP:FRINGE by his colleagues. For example he demonises the use of antidepressants for biological depression and in fact disputes the existence of biological depression. A simplistic, very outdated 1990's interpretation of the mechanism of action of antidepressants is given in the article which misleads the reader. Brain disabling psychiatric medical treatment is not notable and the phrase receives no attention in academic publications; therefore the article fails WP:N. There is also significant problems with quality of references and the references used are being misinterpreted/misused, such as ECT being wrongly described as a surgical procedure and the pharmacodynamics of neuroleptics/antipsychotics being incorrect and sounding closer in description to amphetamines. WP:MEDRS, WP:RS and WP:V are not adequately met as sources are being misused, misinterpreted and are of poor quality and also there is evidence of possible WP:NOR violations. There also are important issues relating to WP:NPOV. There is no doubt side effects and even toxicities occur from certain psychiatric drugs, e.g. tardive dyskinesia from antipsychotics or hypomania/mania as side effects from antidepressants but these can be discussed on the respective pages without needing to have a WP:FRINGE article on a non-notable 'theory'. MrADHD | T@1k? 18:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, minor technicality: nominator can not vote. History2007 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. :)--MrADHD | T@1k? 03:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, neither can anyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MrADHD | T@1k? 19:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly. Classic example of an WP:ESSAY or WP:SYNTHESIS, and so POV that even the title is POV. --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the article was created by a special purpose account who states, "I'm a biomedical engineering major from Georgia Tech, participating in a Wikipedia article writing project under this Wikipedia assignment." ~~I see that she was not notified about this AfD; are you going to do that, MrADHD, or would you like me to?~~ (Thanks)--MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup all done, she has been notified now. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: OR and synth on non-notable fringe topic based on poor sources, with major POV problems. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I stumbled on this a while ago and was quite appalled by this essay. Absolutely unencyclopedic POV. --Randykitty (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV-tastic. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, per all of the above. The material contained in the page could better be covered in summary style at Biopsychiatry controversy, for example. I feel especially strongly that pages whose content might influence medical choices by our readers should be held to a high standard with respect to not presenting fringe views in a misleading manner. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind: please see below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep There are significant problems with this article especially in terms of its neutrality but that does not in itself constitute an argument for deletion. It's also certainly meets the criteria for WP:FRINGE but it is still notable. Breggin himself is a notable anti-psychiatrist or at least a notable critic of the medical-model of mental disorder. But he is significant and his positions are notable within the context of the anti-psychiatry/psychiatric survivor movement and a wider discourse critical of so-called biological psychiatry. The notability of the thesis can be established through Google Scholar if one isn't too restrictive in searching for the exact phrase used in the article title. Thus searching for '"brain disabling" OR "brain damage" AND breggin' returns 827 references, quite a proportion of which have been authored by Breggin himself, but the thesis has obviously been treated in academic publications. Typically, his position has been refuted in articles published in medical journals but has enjoyed a degree of support in psychology, psychotherapy and sociology journals. Either way its sufficiently notable for an article and it should be possible to add criticism of his thesis from secondary sources.

If you look at his publication, Brain disabling treatments in psychiatry: Drugs, electroshock, and the psychopharmaceutical complex Google Scholar returns 165 citations. Some of these citations meet the Wikipedia criteria for medical sources (e.g. Are Stimulants Overprescribed for Youths with ADHD, Annals of Clinical Psychiatry; 'Neuroleptic discontinuation in clinical and research settings: scientific issues and ethical dilemmas', Biological Psychiatry) but most do not and point to Breggin's influence in non-medical treatments of mental illness that are critical of the medical model.

Aspects of his thesis have gotten relatively significant coverage in medical publications- particularly his contention that ECT causes brain damage or is "brain disabling". For example:

DP Devanand, AJ Dwork, 'Does ECT Alter Brain Structure', American Journal of Psychiatry (1994)
Olaf C.G. Zachrisson et al., 'No evident neuronal damage after electroconvulsive therapy', Psychiatry Research (2000)
AD Reisner, 'The Electroconvulsive Therapy Controversy: Evidence and Ethics', Neuropsychology Review (2003)

The article needs a significant rewrite to establish a neutral point of view but I think it's easy enough to establish the notability of the topic and its significance within a contemporary discourse about contemporary psychiatric treatment. What this article requires is appropriate contextualisation in terms of the status of the thesis within the medical/psychiatric literature and its relevance to critics of psychiatry from other disciplines and patient movements. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make an interesting observation, but I question whether it should be kept under the existing title, since one could make a far more NPOV title, and whether it wouldn't really require a rewrite from the ground up. Might it make better sense to delete, and create a new page from scratch, with a new title? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There's nothing here that could possibly be used as the basis of a future article. Delete and flush twice. That will make no difference at all to a hypothetical future editor that wants to create an article along the lines that FiachraByrne proposes. Better to start from scratch than to try to untangle all of the nonsense here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Breggin has an article here, and most of this material is already mentioned there. However, I would argue against a merge/redirect because of the POV title. --MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (and retitle): The mile long title may need to change, but the topic is totally notable and Bregin is well published. He is not the only author to suggest that "popping pills can harm the brain". That has been argued by a number of physicians. The main problem here is the focus on Bregin and the strange title that does not show on searches. Try this or this for instance, or variants. I will not be watching here any more, so please do not expect a response from me if you ask a question. But the topic (not the title) is notable for sure. History2007 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep ~~No new arguments but~~ totally agree with History2007. This article is equivalent to an article about a book that discusses a certain issue - it is just a bit more expanded.Lova Falk talk 10:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no objection to a completely new article being rewitten on the topic under a different title, but that would be best done from scratch, rather than trying to use what's here as a basis. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is something useful in this essay, it could be merged to any of the numerous articles that we already have on the subject (see Category:Anti-psychiatry). --Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think any of us arguing for deletion would dispute that there is notable material related to what is on the page. But I would also urge care with respect to arguments based on WP:GHITS. Likewise, we should consider the last paragraph of WP:JNN: the fact of notability does not trump WP:NOT and other policies and guidelines (here, particularly, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS). Anything to be kept or merged really must satisfy WP:NPOV as well as eschew anything that misleads readers medically. The question is whether, if the page were to be deleted, anything would be lost with respect to creating proper content from scratch. In that regard, please let me suggest that those editors arguing for some sort of keep specify what, on the page, you would retain on a kept and renamed page. If there is a compelling argument for keeping a significant portion of the content, then that might change my mind, but if there isn't, it would be advisable to create better material from scratch. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If those of us arguing that the article is salvageable were serious in our intent I think we would have begun to tag and edit it by this point. In its current form it doesn't belong in article space. I've copied the article to my sandbox at User:FiachraByrne/Iatrogenic psychiatric treatments (working title) and added these AFD comments to the talk page. I'm not entirely sure if it would be possible to write the article I'd like to about this subject without either inappropriate synthesis of sources or original research. In any case, the likelihood of my creating the kind of article I've proposed above is very marginal given my other article priorities and real life demands. As I can't commit to editing the article into shape myself and as I'm ambiguous about whether that's even possible I'll withdraw my keep argument. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move Why not move it and simply make this article about Breggin's book "Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry." as he more or less coined the term if I am not correct. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a workable suggestion I think. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Lova Falk talk 14:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a revised page about Breggin's book, per Doc James. That's a very good idea, and better than deleting, so I changed my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hold it, folks. Before we accept an article about the book, the book has to be notable - and I could find no evidence that it meets WP:NBOOK. A Google search finds only listings of the book for sale, and things written by Breggin himself. Google News Archive finds nothing about the book. Google Scholar says the book has been cited 165 times, but finds no reviews or other substantial coverage ABOUT the book. Bottom line, Breggin himself may be notable, but this book isn't - and thus it shouldn't have have an article. The content is adequately covered already at Peter Breggin. --MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Limited search returns two book reviews. I'm sure there are more if one wants to dedicate time to finding them. I've never heard of the Nursing Leadership Forum journal and I don't know if it's peer reviewed. I'd expect a trawl through the newspaper archives would return more again.

Journal of Psychiatry and Law (2009)
Nursing Leadership Forum (1998)

FiachraByrne (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the trawl through the newspaper archives: [2] I don't find any substantial coverage about the book; do you? --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I was referring to; I meant a proper newspaper database like Nexis. 03:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple more reviews/articles with substantial coverage:

Moncrieff, Joanna, 'Understanding Psychotropic Drug Action: The Contribution of the Brain-Disabling Theory', Ethical Human Psychology & Psychiatry Fall 2007, Vol. 9 Issue 3, p170-179. 10p - I think Breggin established that journal
Baldwin, Steve, 'Review: Brain-disabling treatments in psychiatry (Book)' Critical Public Health. Jun98, Vol. 8 Issue 2, p176. 8/9p.
Whitaker, Leighton C., 'Review:Peter R. Breggin, Ed. (2008). Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock, and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex, 2nd Edition', Journal of College Student Psychotherapy. Oct-Dec2009, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p302-307. 6p. DOI: 10.1080/87568220903167307 - now there's a stellar publication.

FiachraByrne (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scopus returns 95 cites for the 2008 version of the book. Mixed range of sources and many of the usual suspects but sufficient for a book article all in all. Question would be, who's going to write it? FiachraByrne (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article that is nominated for deletion does not cite sources about the book but inappropriately uses sources to back up a theory, so there is little content if any that could be merged into an article about Breggin's book.--MrADHD | T@1k? 02:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If one was arsed, and in truth I'm not, that wouldn't be difficult to fix. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite as an article about the book. Personally, I think it could still be merged to the article on the author, but that could better be discussed after we see what the article on the book looks like. This article is not about the harm that might be done by psychotherapeutic agents, but rather about a particular person's hypothesis about it. that does not make for a serpatate article. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If rewriting for a different topic is being proposed, deleting and replacing with a stub would be the best choice? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but retitle (indicating that this is about a book), per Doc James. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 14:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the comments subsequent to my endorsement of a page about the book, I want to update (yet again) what I had said earlier. I think that keeping should only take the form of stub-ifying the page (indeed, there is no reason to keep all the poorly-sourced content about drug classes), and moving it to a new page name. In effect, we would be restarting from scratch anyway, and it ends up coming down to a question of whether there is any harm in keeping the edit history (I think not). I take the point that there are two sides to the argument about whether the book satisfies WP:NBOOK, but I think that editors in this discussion have made enough of a case for the notability of Breggin's writings that we might as well presume passage of WP:GNG for purposes of the decision here. One can always take the book page to another AfD, but I think that needs to be a separate and later discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's sorta bass-ackwards. None of the material here is of any use, so there is no point in retaining the history of the article. The book is a separate topic altogether, and there is little evidence that is is notable enough for a stand alone article. It can be covered in the article on the author. No point in creating a new article that will, at best, remain a stub or, probably, be deleted itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That could be, but I'm not yet persuaded that the book fails notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(in some form) I think there is useful information here beyond the more common side effects of some medications. Though the mainstream medical community may consider this FRINGE, clearly much is being said about these ideas both positive and negative. I think it is WP:N and sources exist, as shown in the above comments. Currently the article is not balanced or neutral and probably contains OR. The fact that an article needs work is NOT a valid reason to delete per WP:DELETE. The guidelines WP:PROBLEM, WP:UGLY,and WP:NEGLECT advise that articles needing improvement and those not being edited currently should be kept if they contain valid information. WP has no deadline so the fact that no one has rushed off to start work is irrelevant to deletion. The fact that a SPA created it is also irrelevant in this case. It was not written as a promotional item and does not violate WP:NOT.

What I consider MOST IMPORTANT is the title for this information. As a reader, I would want to find information that shows me the ideas that are against the age old accepted practices of treatment and any information that may show developing thoughts about long term effects of current accepted practices. I want to be able to find this even if I have never heard of this guy or his book. I am strongly against this becoming a book article. We need to remember who our writing is to benefit: this is the general public. Most editors in this discussion seem to be very well informed about these topics, but the average reader is not. Because of this, I think the article should be renamed or at least merged with another article on a similar topic. Probing Mind (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't going to become a page about the book, I'd prefer fully deleting it. No reason why we can't have content about contrarian views, but this material is the wrong way to do it, so better to start that from scratch. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I may summarize the above discussion: this article is not suited for WP and so flawed that to make anything out of it, one would have to start from scratch. In that case, it would need a different title, too. However, there exists a book which may or may not be notable that has a similar title, so we could re-write this to be about the book and then if necessary take that to AfD. Note that this would mean that this article will become an article about a totally different subject (the book instead of the phenomenon). If this summary is about correct, I think that the simplest way to deal with this is to delete the current article. If anybody feels the need to create an article about the book, or about the phenomenon (but with better sources and a better title), then nothing would hold them back to create these other articles. --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree. The article is not about the book but about the theory. If this article is kept, it should be stubified into a paragraph as there is little content worth saving and no content is about the book so I don't see how the 'move' to article about the book idea is going to work. If someone wants to create an article about the book rather than the theory that is a whole different project/task altogether.--MrADHD | T@1k? 15:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? If the book is where the theory is chiefly described and what is cited by critics as a point of reference, then I disagree, but I'm ignorant here. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is NOT A SUMMARY of this discussion. I respect your opinion and your right to express it. You are summarizing part of the comments above, presumably the ones you support. There are several other opinions not covered in your "summary" and to call it such is totally misleading. Sorry if I am too harsh in marking this point. Best Wishes Probing Mind (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RandyKitty, that's a very entertaining parody of this discussion, but please let me try to apply a little deconstruction to it. Let's say we stubify the page, thereby removing all of the unencyclopedic content, and title it to be about the book. Here, I'll make a first draft right here: "Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry is a book by Peter Breggin, in which he argues for the anti-psychiatric view that many mainstream treatments for mental illness are harmful." True, it's a very stubby stub. We've had a couple of editors in this AfD discussion claim that Breggin is widely published etc., so they potentially could expand it to a paragraph or two. All of the issues about sourcing, POV, and FRINGE that are raised in the deletion nomination go away. What we are left with is a short page about a book, and differing opinions, not a consensus one way or the other, about whether or not the book is notable. We aren't going to settle the notability of the book in this discussion. So, at bottom, what's the problem? That a page about the book might be short? That in the future someone might question its notability? That there would be some edit history? That, alternatively, someone could have started the book page from scratch? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we are discussing here keeping a page and then replacing its text with an article about a completely different subject... That's rather unusual, wouldn't you say? --Randykitty (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I'm reminded about the cliché about not wanting to see how sausage is made. You are right that the process is a mess, but I'm arguing that the end result is a reasonable one. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for "stubification" with text such as Tryptofish suggests above. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nominator. Clear POV/Fringe problems. In fact the entry for Peter Breggin (the source for this 'theory') lacks the secondary sources to even make him notable. --phazakerley (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering characters: A[edit]

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

Last week, I nominated four articles on Magic: The Gathering characters for deletion, all do to the lack of sufficient out-of-universe sorting: here, there, hither, and thither. Today, I’m nominating the rest of them on the same grounds.

List of Magic: The Gathering characters: A
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: B
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: C
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: D
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: E
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: F
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: I
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: J
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: K
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: L
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: M
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: N
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: O
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: P
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: Q
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: R
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: S
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: T
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: U
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: V
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: W
List of Magic: The Gathering characters: Y

p b p 18:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all lists together because Wikipedia is not paper and refocus as a navigational list, which means that only characters that are described in some other Wikipedia article should be listed and linked to. Diego (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also note that these lists interact with the "Major characters" section of Template:MTG_navbox. Deleting these lists would require reworking that template, so to fix the links that are targeting characters in these lists (the previous recent deletions have already broken some of the links in it). Definitely some merging work will be required. Diego (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ALL as fancruft, along with any templates that rely on them. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this affecting a template, WikiProject Magic: The Gathering needs to be warned about it. Diego (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but perhaps the template itself should be deleted if it is relying on lists like these. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in notifications. The template won't be broken per se, it'll just have a few red links in it. All that has to happen is somebody has to go around and remove the red links p b p 22:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - all subject matter non-notable, inappropriate lists. Claritas § 17:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Minnesota . MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Computer Science and Engineering (University of Minnesota)[edit]

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

Separate department that does not show any sourcing that would have notability. I would not be opposed to a redirect to the University but I do believe it fails notability standards as is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point about souring is correct and I do agree that the article should be sourced. I however do note that the article does meet the standard for notability since many less famous computer science departments have articles on Wikipedia. Here are some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Computer_Science_%28University_of_Copenhagen%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UP_Diliman_Department_of_Computer_Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCSB_Department_of_Computer_Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBC_Computer_Science_Department
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_University_School_of_Engineering_and_Computing_Sciences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Regina_Department_of_Computer_Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Computer_Science,_FMPI,_Comenius_University
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_State_University_Computer_Science_Department

And the list goes on.Vonaurum (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm completely off base and there is a consensus that they are notable by default (A hasty and sweeping generalization in my opinion) feel free to close. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the parent university article unless evidence of independent notability for this department can be found, as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges. AllyD (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Departments are not generally notable. All or most of the others cited should probably be deleted too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Minnesota per AllyD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Minnesota per above. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel mostly the same way about the other articles that you've posted. I'd suggest tagging them all to merge into the respective articles for their unniversities. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward a keep vote, mainly because of the department's notable contributions to the Gopher protocol, its ranking in the Top 100 QS World University Rankings, and its research lab GroupLens Research. I'm not 100% sure if this makes the department notable, though, so I wouldn't have a fit if someone were to merge this to University of Minnesota College of Science and Engineering. I'd be most entertained, though, if someone were to do a spoken article of this in a thick, incomprehensible accent, which you could only listen to after waiting in a long registration line at Fraser Hall and hoping that the class hasn't filled up already. Ah, fond memories of my undergraduate days. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand how deletion of this article would be worthwhile. The gopher protocol holds enough significance that the dept. deserves it's own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halai (talk • contribs) 04:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The practical criterion is normally among the most famous in the world. We normally apply notability criteria very strictly to subdivisions of notable organizations, and for good reason. To the limited extent that the QS ratings are reliable for it, they show lack on notability for this department: it isn't even in the top 50. I note that it is precisely famous departments that we generally do not have articles on, probably because nobody feels the need to promote them. With respect to the discoveries at this department, it is not one or two notable discoveries that make for either fame or notability, or else all major departments of all major universities would be notable. We could write about the subject that way, and if it were decided to do so on a consistent basis, I might very possibly support it, but if we are going to be selective, we should be selective rationally. The article on the Group lens lab is I think unjustified; the article should be on Group Lens, and if any one wants to edit out the overdetailed material about the group and move it I will certainly support it. With respect to the other departments llisted, I would and will argue for the deletion of every one of them, though I do not want to confuse the issue of deleting this particular article by doing so until this AfD is finished. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 22:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Extreme Skiing Championship[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Also, promotional, with the author (who has a clear conflict of interest) repeatedly adding promotional content after it has been removed. An earlier AfD was closed as "no consensus" after only one person other than the nominator commented, and that one person gave only a very weak "keep". JamesBWatson (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough to be covered on ESPN and I've watched this on Sky (maybe on the Extreme Sports Channel). That said, the article is rather spammy, and could be improved with more information and better references. And I have no problem with an external link to the official site being provided - this is common practice on Wikipedia - just not linked to the bold lead-in. Astronaut (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - failed, but seems to have enjoyed a brief period of notability among those who care about this kind of puffed-up stuff. That said: the COI must be addressed, and the promotional crap removed, posthaste. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per Orangemike. Go Phightins! 20:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a10, repetitive to Computer crime. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Punishment for computer crime[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an essay. TBr and ley 17:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might possibly be changed to punishment for computer crimes by country but it would take a complete rewrite for it. Therefore I am thinking delete per nom. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Steam games[edit]

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

Also nominating:

{{List of Steam games}} (by necessity since it only refers to pages exclusively in this AFD)

Short summary: violates WP:NOT#CATALOG. MASEM (t) 16:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation: Steam is a popular software package that is used for purchasing and delivering games (and recent, productivity apps) to the user. It includes games made by its developer, Valve Corporation, but the bulk are third party titles. While Steam provides a layer of digital rights management to protect piracy of released products for any software on the system, it also offers an API layer, Steamworks, which developers can chose to take advantage of to offer more features like networking, achievements, cloud saves, etc.

Recently the category Category:Steam games was deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 27#Category:Steam games. This focused on the fact that at this point, Steam basically is a large vendor akin to Amazon.com and we would never have a category "Amazon.com products"; similarly this category was proved to be a problem. I will note that some arguments in that CFD pointed out that we had List of Steam games so the functionality of the category really wasn't lost.

That said, I've been mulling over these lists for a few days and realize that the lists themselves are a problem - again, they are akin to a catalog even though we don't give prices. It is not an issue of notability (Steam clearly is) nor instability (the rate that games are added and removed, though change about 3-4 times a week, are not huge), but simply we are basically giving a list of first- and third-party products a specific vendor supplies, making this commercial in nature. I'm also considering a recent set of AFDs that involved the channel lineups of specific cable/satellite providers (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels) where we deleted these because we were basically providing a directory of what products a vendor provided.

I know these comparisons will come up, but I want to differentiate this list from other possible/existing lists. A hypothetical List of Microsoft Windows games (which would necessarily include every game on these lists) would be reasonable, since we are not identifying the list with any vendor, just by platform, which we have done for every other console/portable out there (eg List of Xbox 360 games); the console/platform is not a vendor here (though they can be ones that sell a sub-selection of those) so its not commercial in nature.

List of Xbox Live Arcade games would seem to be the same as the List of Steam games, but here, the only way to get these games on the 360 (with very limited exceptions of some retail releases) is through purchase through the service; further, the service offers special features/APIs that tie in with the 360 hardware/OS, which are included in the above list. Therefore, while it is a full "catalog" of games offered by a vendor, its serving the purposes of outlining games that have a specific feature-set for the 360 and just so happens these two sets are nearly identical. (Note: I am well aware of the price of MS points in the Arcade list, that does need to go, but that's not a point here, since we don't have price lists for Steam games). In the same vein, I would see no problem with a List of Steamworks-enabled games, since that would focus on the feature set and not the catalog aspect, and secondly Valve/Steam is not the only vendor for these (you can buy redeemable codes at Amazon.com or other places); Steamworks-enabled games require Steam to run, but that's not fully spelling the catalog, just focusing on a specific unique, notable feature. (I do note we apparently have List of games using Steam authentication, which is actually fine and could be expanded upon).

Going a bit more detailed, something like List of games developed by Valve would not be a problem because here, this is more akin to a bibliography or discography, even through Valve also is the primary vendor for all these games.

I will note that I think deletion is the right approach here, but there is a possibility that these lists can be used to form the basis of a List of Steamworks-enabled games by removing those that do not have Steamworks, and adding columns for the appropriate Steamworks features, so a rename/revamp of these articles may also be possible. But my gut tells me it would be easier to start fresh than to work backwards - I might be wrong there. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't want to just say "per nom", but Masem lays out a hugely comprehensive case. I'll just say we should not group items by vendor, and we have other ways of grouping them by company and online access and functionality. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My initial reaction to seeing this was "what, are you kidding? How do we justify deleting this?" Masem makes a very compelling case, however, particularly with the distinction he draws between this and List of Steamworks-enabled games (something I agree could exist; indeed, I would support that list's creation and possibly using List of Steam games as a redirect) and the amusing suggestion that this is akin to having a List of Amazon goods. The distinctions back up the notion that this violates WP:NOT#CATALOG, in that it essentially represents a Steam sales catalog. I anticipate a barrage keep arguments akin to the obvious fact that this list is useful, but I hope people take the time to read Masem's well-considered rationale. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT#CATALOG and per Masem (and some previous discussions). It simply comes down to us not listing a store's catalog. Steam is not a computing platform per se, and whatever games are on Steam will also be on their specific platform. If being on Steam was somehow unique, such list would be warranted (i.e. List of Steamworks-enabled games or something), however these games are just games in a very long list of items Steam sells and distributes and most games only incorporate Steam API for achievements and stats, which is hardly a defining factor, in my opinion. Granted that Steam is basically a monopoly right now, but that shouldn't be a factor or we are biasing for the "big guys". Besides raising these points I feel stronger about, I pretty much agree with Masem's arguments. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget to include List of games using Steam authentication in this? And we do have Category:Steam Workshop games.--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said we should not include it when it was brought up at WT:VG, and I'm guessing Masem agreed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you can apply the exact same deletion reasoning to it, can you not?--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, please see my reasoning above. Those lists you point are games sorted by a specific software feature (the use of Steamworks API, the use of Steam Workshop). Yes, they are tied to a vendor, this being Valve/Steam, but the focus is on the feature set of the software, as opposed to just being listed for sale on a site. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of games using Steam authentication - I thought all Steam games required authentication? Making it a duplicate of List of Steam games. Correct?--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some games require Steam authentication when purchased via other channels. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are absolutely right that Steam's DRM is based on encrypting each executable file in a manner that requires you to have first authenicated yourself with Steam's servers to get a "magic cookie" (or other authentication token) that lets you then run the games; however, past this point, most games do not use that information at all even if it is available. This executable authenication is a function of the steam software and the developers of a game for the service need not do anything to have that work for them because that all executes before the game is launched. In other words - if it is on the store, it has this feature. What the List of games with Steam authentication does are those that then further use the Steamworks API to take advantage of the unique user information to track players in leaderboards or for matchmaking. This has to be added by the developer. My suggestion of a List of Steamworks-enabled games would encompasss this list since this Steam authenication in-game is part of the API. I think what the confusion is here is that the current authenication list needs to be accurate that it is talking about the in-game use of the feature and not just the default protection Steam offers. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources available for List of games using Steam authentication, or is it all original research? I find it very unclear...--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the individual games will likely have their own sources to affirm that (eg a title off the top of my head I know does is Borderlands 2, as this was a huge thing to use Steamworks auth over the previous title's Gamespy). If not sourced to third-parties, then this information would be on the game's card sheet at Steam. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Steam is not a maker of games, but simply a distributor. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely correct, Steam is not a platform. --SubSeven (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As a comment on this point, this is a good way to identify the difference: Steam is a storeform, Steamworks is the basis of a platform. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTCATALOG --Odie5533 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL per nom. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is quite useful, and I don't believe the information it has should be deleted. I don't believe it violates WP:NOTCATALOG any more than List of Playstation 3 Games, List of Wii Wi-Fi Connection games, or List of PlayStation Store games, since Steam is considered its own platform (a gaming distribution platform. The page could use enhancements though. Look at it from another perspective: An article "List of Games available through Digital Distribution" would be acceptable, would it not? However, adding features to each game that are offered by the different digital distributors would take up a lot of space, and the list itself would be quite large. At that point, would you not consider making a "List of Steam Games", "List of Desura Games", "List of Windows Live Games", etc.? In addition, the main point of this article is the features and platforms each game supports. It is a difficult choice, but I think instead of just getting rid of all this useful information out of hand (I personally spent much time creating the Linux column and enhancing the Mac column) you should propose a way to keep this information and its usefulness while staying in wikipedia guidelines. I also think this request for deletion should be left open for quite some time. 98.127.132.120 (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Steam is not the platform - it is the store; the platform for these games is either Microsoft Windows (which encompasses them all + more) or Steamworks-enabled games. That list grouping is on the order with PS3 games (a platform), Wii Wi-Fi Connections games (a specific subset based on features). List of PlayStation Store games (note: List of PlayStation Store games is a list of lists, and while the individual lists are fine, I'm not sure about the list of list need). We would similarly not have a List of Desura games or List of GOG games. We would likely have a List of Games for Windows or Games for Windows - Live (these are feature sets) as well. Also, overarching, "It's useful" is not a strong argument. --MASEM (t) 06:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I don't see how those examples and List of PlayStation Store games and it's sublists don't violate CATALOG and are much better. PS list is basically their respective store's catalog, but split by platform or some other criteria. Their real distinction is that the games are only available via PlayStation Store and that may be valid criteria to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If we had Available on Steam-only list, that would be different that Available on Steam list. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per NOTCATALOG. About as encyclopedic as a list of condiments sold at Tesco. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. B. Cox[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:BASEBALL/N. Never played in the majors. As for the US National team, WP:ATH reads 'have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics.' He didn't play in the Olympics.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC) ...William 15:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This was WP:SNOW closed as keep last year when it was nominated. WP:BASE/N and WP:ATH are irrelevant here, because the individual has enough reliable coverage in sources independent of the subject to establish GNG. The article is a stubby stub and requires expansion and clean up, but not deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG; I'll agree that he doesn't meet WP:ATH nor WP:NBASEBALL, but he passes GNG. I wholeheartedly agree with Muboshgu. Go Phightins! 20:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--meets WP:GNG, regardless of other criteria. —Theo polisme 21:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bentley (songwriter)[edit]

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

Non-notable songwriter, Sources provided are not reliable and a shufti at Google shows his social media is the top result and there is nothing relating to him in news. Since he has a popular name I searched Phil Bentley Songwriter. Appears to fails GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No standalone notability (one song?) and attempt to establish notability by association. The only halfway valid reference there is his own management company. Fails WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog 23:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Simply listing "who x songwriter has worked with" does not make him notable. If there are actually songs written that meet notability test, they would be listed and sourced.Zacaparum (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems there hasn't been any in-depth or other significant coverage for him and despite searching with the listed artists through Google News and Books, I found nothing useful. I'm voting delete with absolutely no prejudice towards a future and better article. SwisterTwister talk 01:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence in reliable sources that would help to establish notability. — sparklism ^hey! 13:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A9. Peridon (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finished With My Ex's Untitled Forthcoming Album[edit]

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

WP:HAMMER. All sources are primary hearsay. Nothing concrete here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. There are no independent sources that meet the criteria for inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 10:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not substantiated by reliable third party sources, impossible to search for a WP:HAMMER if the title isn't known. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per [[WP:HAMMER}}. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete a9. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intercultural Reflective Language Teacher[edit]

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

I can't find any mention of this online, and judging from the fourth footnote in the article the concept seems to be original research. I doubt that sources exist to prove it passes the general notability guideline. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 03:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 03:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 03:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. I can find no mention of the title in MLA, ERIC, EBSCO Academic Search Premier, or Google Scholar. The article seems like a summary of discussions among scholars at University of Pennsylvania and Jönköping University, which don't appear to have been published. Cnilep (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatant original research, no reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Futz![edit]

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

Originally deleted for lack of context (CSD:A1), ~~recently undeleted~~. The article appears to fail WP:GNG. I am suggesting deletion or redirection to the article on the production company. -- Patchy1 02:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Teletoon Original Productions - It seems it never continued past 2007 and IMDb and Google News results both support this (with all of the articles from either 2006 or 2007). The most recent article of all is this from December 2007 announcing the episodes were sold to several international networks. This list indicates the show wasn't well received by some people though it proves nothing, several shows especially children's are sometimes hated regardless. The sudden disappearance is not uncommon with animated shows, a perfect example is Caillou which experienced hiatus for years before an official ending. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter two sentences actually constitute reasoning for keeping the article, not redirecting it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: There are multiple WP:RS in the article, so WP:N is established. The nominator is also incorrect regarding the article being undeleted; undeletion was in fact denied and the article recreated from scratch instead (an action supported by this statement by the denying administrator: "See WP:AFC or WP:USERSPACEDRAFT for your way forward."). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I got it mixed up with another article. In any case, minus the recently undeleted part, my nom stands. -- Patchy1 23:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - the undelete request was denied, twice, and yet the article was recreated in a basically identical manner very soon afterwards. Maybe a locked redirect to List of Teletoon Original Productions would be in order. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The recreated article was not at all identical. As I recall, the original version consisted of part of a sentence - no WP:RS, or sources at all for that matter, were included. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the article before was that it was lacking in context and content - now it's severely lacking in content, just taking up one line. I fail to see how this article is worth having at all. TV shows are not inherently notable all by themselves. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking in content is not a valid deletion reason; see WP:STUB. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is. Besides that, notability is never established: at the moment, all the sources establish is that it exists, not that it was ever notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first point: the only sentence in WP:STUB that supports this is: "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." However, this is different from lacking in content, and this particular article is a good example of this, as it actually packs quite a bit of verifiable information into its small size:

The show is a Teletoon Original Production.
The show started airing in 2007.
The show was created by Vadim Kapridov.
The show consists of 26 episodes.
Each episode of the show is 3 minutes long.

Regarding your second point: see WP:N - having multiple WP:RS in an article automatically establishes it, unless the article's existence violates one or more other WP:GUIDELINE(s). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lukeno94 and SALT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete and SALT for obvious reasons mentioned above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete and SALT. You could have 100 references...still not notable. (Why do people think adding refs makes things notable?) — ^Wylie_Coyote 01:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I withdraw my nomination. If 3rd party sources have been found than I'm cool with it :) (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheries College and Research Institute, Thoothukudi[edit]

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

Contested prod, with no reason given. Feel like an advert, with a lack of reliable 3rd-party sources. Mdann52 (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks like WP:ADVERT with no reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 06:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 06:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 06:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles on verified secondary and tertiary educational institutions are generally kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve Should be edited for tone and WP:NPOV, but it's a notable institution, and now has sufficient WP:RS. Altered Walter (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sufficient third party sources. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Sulekha Dalai[edit]

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

This is not a notable event, and this article is a hopelessly POV essay, attempting to prove (as far as I can tell) that this woman's suicide was, in fact, a murder. I'm sure it's very tragic etc., but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, deletion preferable as the present article is a BLP minefield. I could only find one news article on the case [3]. If someone would find more Odia media coverage, it would be a different case though. --Soman (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if the case was notable which according to WP:GNG standards, it's not, it's a prime candidate for WP:TNT. WP:NOT#FORUM, and essay. Secret ^account 01:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One news article is not enough to explain why this murder/case was notable. I read murders like this in newspapers everyday. --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With You (TV series)[edit]

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

LOL page. Can't think of any policy, but just do take a look. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless of notaility, it is just a spam page. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Wp:notability is possible, ~~but there are zero references, and zero indication of notability, and~~ little or no encyclopedic content to save. I took out some of the worst stuff, but is still miles from being an encyclopedia article. North8000 (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Newly added references change the situation. Severe issues with the content remain. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if, and only if, someone can get Chinese and/or Singaporean sources that prove it won and got the nominations for the Star Awards 2011 that the article alludes to. Even more so if someone gets some other sources to comment on this particular program series. I would assume that it passes WP:GNG, but it may be hard to prove this. Obviously, if this notability cannot be proved, it has to be deleted. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Here's proof that they won the 2011 Star Award for Best Actress.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've sourced the awards section in the article as well as turning it into a table rather than just a list.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, and that looks much better now. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much like telenovelas, Asian serial dramas can seem hokey and weird to US audiences, but they're often shockingly popular and culturally notable. How popular? This one was watched by nearly a million people, which is a big deal in a nation of 5 million. To put that into perspective, a show viewed by 20% of the US population would be the buzz of the entertainment world... in fact, that's about what American Idol was doing as of season 10. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Lenahan. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's won some awards from what must be the Chinese equivalent of the Emmy, so it passes notability guidelines. In all fairness though, I must somewhat defend the original AfD nominator in that the original version of the article was slightly unclear about the awards and searching foreign language sources can be difficult if you don't have a browser that allows for instant translation or copy/paste of Chinese characters.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and it's not a Chinese equivalent, but a Singaporean one. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcing that note on how bad the article was when it was nominated (and defense of the nomination), there were two other large problematic things present when nominated which I subsequently took out. One was an entire large section written in Chinese, the other was a ersatz "references" section (on an article which had ZERO citations and ZERO real references) which consisted only of a Wikipedia template listing the filmography and discography of an actress in the series. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Young Lucretia and Other Stories per clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Gong show 08:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Sweet-Grass Basket[edit]

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

Article is about a short story with no assertion of notability. Searching, I can find no indication that this short story has been a focus of scholarly study, or received critical reviews that would establish notability. Whpq (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / merge Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability. Content is just a plot summary. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Young Lucretia and Other Stories, which is the book that contains this story. I can't see evidence of notability of the story. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Young Lucretia and Other Stories. I found so far only one mention, which I'm not even sure is really all that usable as a RS. Redirecting it to the main article for the book would be best at this point in time as everything I'm finding mentions it in relation to the overall book for the most part.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As nominator, I support a redirect. I did look for the book but must have mistyped the name. I apologize for taking up others' time with what could have been easily redirected without discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no biggie. Sometimes it's better to err on the side of caution when it is something questionable, such as a short story by a notable author. It's conceivable that sources could have existed to show independent notability, so no true harm done.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Tokyogirl79. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This will be a snow redirect so I went ahead and merged them all into the main article and redirected. I didn't redirect 'A Sweet-Grass Basket' since it's still under AfD but when ready add this

#REDIRECT [[Young Lucretia and Other Stories#A Sweet-Grass Basket]]

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International College of Robotic Surgeons[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Most of article is a direct Copyvio from the College's web-site. No other material is included in article. References are own web-site and advertising flyers for itself or medical robotics in general. Not notable. No assertion of any notability Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What I see here after 6 pages of ghits is a non-notable organization with an impressive-sounding name trying to promote itself. No significant third-party coverage, mentions, etc. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON but fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog 06:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of copyvio and does not seem to have established much of an impact on the world. Seems to be related to the other article (World Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons) in some way, but less notable. I don't see any rationale for a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not shown, looks like author is a PR flack. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability could not be established. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 My Chemical Romance. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Way[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence that he is independently notable, outside of My Chemical Romance. Most of the references at the moment are to TV.com (not a reliable source). I could only find one reliable source specifically about Mikey Way, which was a Guardian article about him leaving the band. Moswento ^talky 10:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main My Chemical Romance article, as per several AfDs in the past. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Chemical Romance, as there is no indication that he is independently notable of the band he played in. — sparklism ^hey! 10:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Young (boxer)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NBOX. He lost to Robinson but it wasn't a title fight.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC) ...William 11:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBOX. Qworty (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet the sportsperson notability. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UKA Press[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I came across this while in a heated debate over the article Eleanor Leonne Bennett. A search did not bring up anything to show that this publisher is notable. The earlier debate in 2006 wouldn't hold up under the current standards of WP:CORP, as there aren't really any sources out there that actually discuss the publisher. The article mentions that the authors have been reviewed by various sources or were nominated or won various things, but none of these are actually about the publisher itself and none of the awards appear to be about the publisher at all. I honestly don't think that reviews for the books are really enough to show notability when the publisher itself has not received any actual coverage outside of their own press releases. Some of the awards are ones from the publisher and given the lack of sources in the general sections, I'm not sure that some of the awards or reviews are for the editions of the books that were published by UKA Press. Some, as in the case of The Kommandant's Mistress, went on to be published by other presses. I'm actually unsure as to whether or not UKA Press actually published the book at all, so any notability for the book would not extend to UKA Press since it didn't publish that specific book. Most of what I can find in relation to this book when it comes to UKA Press is that it won one of the publisher's awards. Most of the reviews only briefly mention the publisher as an aside (this was published by so and so, etc) and as notability is not inherited by having notable persons work for the company or being otherwise associated with them, I don't see where this passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. AndreaUKA also has a clear COI and should not editing the article, regardless of AfD outcome. Giant Snowman 13:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... there's nothing that says she can't, just that she should take that into consideration when it comes to looking at sources. It's discouraged, but not forbidden.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GiantSnowman. – Richard BB 13:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There does seem to be substantial independent coverage of various books and writers, but that only counts towards notability for articles on those articles about those books and writers; it doesn't make this publisher notable because notability is not inherited. bobrayner (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear notable by Google searches with the term "UKA Press". Google News archives hits do not appear to constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, while Google Books hits are just books from the publisher. CtP (t • c) 23:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I’m somewhat reluctant to get involved with all this again. I’m getting on a bit (far too rapidly approaching 70, alas) and it’s all becoming a trifle exhausting :)This was thoroughly discussed and debated years ago and, with the help of many kind and thoughtful WIKI editors, the article was brought up to scratch and a ‘’‘Keep’’’ decision was arrived at. (please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_UKA_Press ).Since then, the only thing that’s changed, it seems to me, is that Mr Brownlow has, in fact, added to his ‘notability’ by being awarded an Academy Honorary Award for his work as a film director, and in recognition of his outstanding contribution to film restoration. Wikipedia notability criteria dictates that "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple (in other words, more than one) non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.’’ In my opinion, UKA Press has fulfilled this criteria. There seems little point, I feel, in going through it all again. If the concern is ‘notability’, please do take the time and trouble to thoroughly research the not-insignificant achievements of (for example) Kevin Brownlow and Peter Hopkinson, the latter also being a man of quite remarkable courage. Thank you. Incidentally, I don't know what Google you use, CtP, but try this one: https://www.google.com/search?q=uka+press&oq=uka+press&sugexp=chrome,mod=5&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 AndreaUKA (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that notability is not inherited by having notable persons involved with the company. You could have President Obama or Prince William publish a book through UKA Press, yet that in itself does not extend notability to the publisher. It doesn't really matter if an author has received awards for other things, that notability still does not extend to the publishing company. As far as previous AfDs go, the rules for notability are always changing and very few of the current notability standards are the same as they were back in 2006. It is extremely common for many pages that previously survived an AfD to be challenged and deleted because they no longer pass the current standards of notability. The idea of WP:NTEMP does not supersede whatever the current standards of notability are for any subject. That policy tends to refer more to the idea that because something is older, such as someone trying to say that A Sucessora lacks notability because it was published so long ago. Now if say, in a year the notability standards for books change so dramatically that the book does not pass the current notability standards, it would be entirely reasonable for the entry to be deleted or redirected to an appropriate article. What I'm essentially trying to say is that passing a previous deletion from years ago when notability standards were far looser for corporations and articles in general doesn't really mean all that much when it comes to AfDs. Sometimes you'll have entries that are so overwhelmingly notable that it makes sense to close them early or vote keep, but most times the previous "keep" votes don't really have any weight in the current AfD because of how standards change.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other big issue here is that much of what the article refers to are articles and sources that aren't actually about anything the company itself has produced. The award for Alexandria Szeman sounds impressive until you realize that it's just an aside and that the book in question was not published by UKA Press. Awards in general only extend notability if the book in question wins and even then, 99.9% of awards are not considered notable enough by Wikipedia standards to count towards notability or keep an article based upon that fact. Even if the articles are about books published by the company, you then have to look at how much the company comes into mention for the books, whether they're actual reviews or blurbs, as well as where the articles are posted. A book blurb (that 2-3 sentence bit on the cover from various authors for those coming into this not aware of what I'm talking about) is not the same thing as a review and is not considered to give notability as far as sources are concerned. A book review by a non-notable magazine, blog, or paper will not show notability either. It really boils down to the sources and articles that actually discuss the company just don't seem to exist and I honestly don't think that a one line mention in a random book review would really count as extending notability to the company when nobody has really seen fit to comment on the publisher. And like Voceditenore has said, WP:GHITS do not count towards notability. There have been AfDs where items have gotten millions upon millions of GHits and were still deleted for a lack of any reliable coverage. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Google hits. First of all, the search term you are using is not for the exact phrase "UKA Press", thus Google turns up all pages with those two words somewhere on the page. A huge proportion of them refer to various other UKA's. The remainder that refer specifically to The UKA Press are simple listings on sites selling (or occasionally reviewing) books published by it, various forums and blogs, and a vast quantity of links to the company's own sites: ukapress.com and ukauthors.com. Second and most importantly, Google Hits isn't the point. It is the fact that no one, including you has yet been able to find a single piece of significant coverage devoted to the publishing house itself in reliable independent sources (online or in print). Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Incidentally, I don't know what Google you use, CtP, but try this one…" I quite literally stated which Google I used, leading me to believe that you didn't bother to read my comment. In addition to Voceditenore's points, I restricted my searches to Google Books and Google News archives to make sure that anything pulled in was a reliable source. CtP (t • c) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm willing to be convinced to change my opinion if good sources somehow show up, but for now I can't find any. There is a certain case to be made for publishing houses inheriting the notability of the books they have published. But I have checked the sources and assertions provided in the Reviews and awards section. They simply do not stand up to scrutiny and the section is very misleading. The awards for two of the authors were not really awards - they were a "finalist" or "shortlist" placement, and the awards themselves are very marginally notable, if at all. The alleged reviews are actually simple publicity blurbs (not actual published reviews) See this for example. Note also the author of one of these alleged reviews: Ellen Tanner Marsh. The vast majority of the alleged reviews are also unreferenced. They lack detailed bibliographic information on the publication in which they supposedly appeared (date. author, and article title). Sometimes even the name of the publication is not given. Some of the books (the ones that might have genuine claims to notability) were reprints of previously published works by another publisher. This combined with zero coverage of the publishing house itself makes it very hard to make a case for keeping this article. Voceditenore (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve posted this on the Bennett article, so I might as well post the UKA Press version here as well: Hello all, I see that the UKA Press page has been festooned with 'citation' notices and various other 'improvements' have been made. But just to let you know that I’m not taking part in any further discussions or editing on this article. Frankly, you can do what you like with it, I don’t really care. Since I’m constantly told my sources are ‘unreliable’, and the subject is ‘not notable’ enough (despite having published several extremely notable works by a world-renowned film historian, writer and directer), but no-one actually cares to find/look for any ‘reliable’ ones and help in a constructive way, but just blithely deletes my efforts, I bow out. I do find it a great shame that relatively new ‘editors’ such as Tokyogirl, who freely admits she’s ‘an AfD junkie’ and who, in fact, is responsible for some pretty dodgy articles herself (The Death of Bees’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Bees) is allowed free range to mangle articles in what is, presumably, a huge ego-trip. One wonders, in fact, why ‘The Death of Bees’ and ‘Windmill Books’ are any more ‘notable’ than UKA Press. I note that the ‘Bees’ article has incredibly clumsy sentence construction. I also found spelling errors and inconsistencies. It strikes me that this ‘editor’ needs to get her own house in order before criticising other so vociferously. Be that as it may, I have a very busy writers and resources website to run single-handedly, and I have no more time to waste banging my head against petty, petulant walls.AndreaUKA (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl has been an editor here for 6 years with more than 13,000 edits. Even if she were a relatively new editor, your personal attack on her is completely uncalled for. I suggest you strike it. (It's also a classic example of how not to defend a position.) Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur completely with Voceditenore. In addition, what makes the 'Bees' article more valid than this one is that its references section contains discussion (not just incidental mentions) of the topic at hand in independent, reliable sources (in this case, newspapers). Your argument about Windmill Books doesn't make much sense, seeing as though it doesn't even have its own article. We have all tried looking for reliable sources about this publisher but have not found any, which is the reason we think it should be deleted in the first place. CtP (t • c) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andrea, I'm going to say this very bluntly: attacking my overall edits here on Wikipedia does not do anything other than make you look incredibly petty and spiteful, especially when many of those comments are obviously due to you being angry over your articles being up for deletion and your edits being removed because they are unsourced and as such, don't follow the rules for sourcing and notability that is required here on Wikipedia. The reason the other articles are kept is because they have multiple independent and reliable sources. I'm also, as others have said, an editor that has been here for about six years. I've not only created multiple articles, but I've also managed to do enough research to keep multiple articles from being deleted as well. My hard work has been noticed by other editors (some of which are admins that have been on here for longer than either of us) and I've had several articles show up on "Did You Know" because of my additions. I wasn't going to entirely pull out the "I've edited more and have a better knowledge of how notability and sourcing works on Wikipedia" card, but there it is: I have edited far more than you have and know more about what I'm talking about. All you've done so far is hold to a set of outdated standards of notability that no longer apply to the article and make a series of increasingly nasty swipes at me. I'm fully aware that my grammar is not up to the highest standards out there, but it's not like I have the grammar of a three year old. The only person being petty here is you. If I make grammatical or spelling errors, then fix them without making a big fuss over doing so or crying about how it supposedly makes me an inferior editor. All of these personal comments and swipes do not help you make your case. All it does is make you look petty.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as being an "AfD junkie", I like contributing to AfDs because I like seeing what I can keep. This does, of course, mean that I will also nominate things for deletion that I do not think belongs on Wikipedia or argue for their deletion. This isn't anything that would be a negative attribute as far as Wikipedia is concerned and doesn't make me a deletionist. I like seeing what I can help save, especially since I greatly enjoy doing research on various topics. There's nothing wrong with being either a deletionist or an inclusionist as long as you follow notability guidelines. It's when people try to argue for deletion or inclusion based on faulty logic that doesn't hold up to notability guidelines or deletion standards that this would become an issue.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sympathetic to the cause of small presses. They are underdogs in a world run by Amazon destroying the fabric of book culture (long story). It really pains me to see small presses deleted from Wikipedia, one more freaking thing right? Amazon ahoy. The problem is though once something reaches AfD, it has to meet the guidelines of WP:CORP. That means, multiple reliable sources about the company itself. This is IMO a very high bar for certain types of companies: magazines, small publishing imprints and press, small companies. We have seen it over and over on AfD. At this point there is not much that can be done if there are no reliable sources. I recommend whenever you can try to get some press exposure for the press itself, a journalistic story or two about the press, not just the products the press produces. At some point I would like to see rules that allow for products to influence the notability of the producer but right now it doesn't seem to be the case (see last sentence of WP:PRODUCT). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I held off on commenting until I could thoroughly search for sources, since I wanted to try to dig through the results of the rather ambiguous search term "UKA" with various attached operands and related addendums, as opposed to just limiting the search for just "UKA Press". Unless there's something I'm not seeing, the article's subject does not have the independent reliable sources to warrant an encyclopedia article. Although I agree with the essence of Green Cardamom's statement, the unfortunate truth is that without third-party reliable sources I don't see how articles could adhere to WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia policy; without independent third-party reliable sources the only thing the article can say is what primary sources provide, and at that point articles become thinly-veiled advertisements instead of encyclopedia articles. - Sudo Ghost 21:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is very difficult to show that a small publisher is notable without there being a substantial historical reccord. The GNG does not work very well, because references about a publisher are usually just incidental--what is written about is the books they publish. Sometimes they will publish so many or be in such a leading or pioneering position that there will be discussion of it, This similarly applies to magazines, and so on,just as Green Cardamon says. Where I would disagree with GC is in the advice to get PR on the company--since this depends on the skill of the PR agent not on the importance of the company, we do not consider anything based primarily upon press releases a reliable source for notability. Also, to a certain extent we do in practice use induction from the products as evidence of notability for the company, but is has to be so clear that common sense alone will do it, because there is no rule to that effect. I'm quite liberal in this direction, and am eager to make up for the deficiencies of sources, but the evidence here is not very convincing. I would not make the argument for anything less than multiple major prize winners, not just mere reviews or nominations for awards or being a finalist (except for a few extremely famous awards). But what we have here is a finalist for one minor award, and one of medium importance. In the long run, if the press is really important, then the literary histories of the last decade will discuss it--eventually. This is likely to take a few decades. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per DGG above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'll be honest, the link-spammed "references" don't help. There might be a couple of useful ones in there somewhere but how could you tell? That there are that many references but still WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH concerns is a concern in and of itself. Unfortunately, those that I looked at didn't even mention the company at all. A reference for a book published by the company (especially one that doesn't actually verify that the company published it) doesn't do much for meeting the requirement for "significant coverage". I'm not going to get into any of the business above but if someone wanted to go through the references and highlight the 2 or 3 they think actually provide significant coverage of the subject, I think that would help. For now (until my continued searches turn up something of worth) I'm inclined to delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 05:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this survived a deletion debate previously on the basis of some rather dubious and non-Wikipolicy-based hand-waving arguments, the references to the article consist of such things as user-generated reviews on amazon.com, and the UKA press seems to fail the basic notability guideline, in that nobody seems to be able to turn up reliably-sourced third party coverage. Still I am a bit surprised that one can publish these books and not attract any third-party coverage, it seems a shame to delete what is a legitimate publisher. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re the morass of references. I've gone through them all to make sure I haven't missed anything. There are zero references that contain significant coverage of The UKA Press itself, although I've just found one that has a bit about it and several other publishers using print on demand technology. See this 2004 article in the Toronto Globe and Mail. I tend to agree with DGG that notability can be induced from the products of the publishing company, i.e. the books it has published, provided that they are highly notable and there are are fair number of them. Neither of these is the case. None of the UKA Press books have won an award, notable or otherwise. Several of the books mentioned as being reviewed were not originally published by UKA. The "Reviews and awards" section is still extraordinarily misleading. (Note: the numbering below refers to this version of the article.)

1-19 refer to Kevin Brownlow, who received an honorary Oscar for his work as a film historian and film preservationist. A couple of those 19 also mention or review his books. However of the 4 books listed in the WP article as published by UKA Press, 2 are actually reprints of books originally published by Knopf and Secker & Warburg. None of the 4 books have won awards in themselves. Note that the numbering of these references refers to this version of the article.

20-24 refer to Judith Wills. Positive reviews in 3 reliable sources (but 2 are only local publications) + a user-generated review on a fansite for Queen. Number 24 verifies that the book was exerpted in the Daily Mail ~~(Wills writes for the newspaper.)~~

25-27 refer to Anoop Chandola. One is to having been a finalist in a non-notable Indie Book contest. Authors pay $69 to submit their book (Observe [5] ). The second is an Amazon.com review. The third is a legitimate review in the Arizona Star but it's not for the book published by UKA Press.

28 is a blog review of Simon Leigh's book.

29-31 refer to Sheldon Goldfarb being a runner-up in the Arthur Ellis Awards (Juvenile Crime Fiction category) and reviews in the Grumpy Old Bookman blog and on the Books in Canada website.

32 refers to a review of Ian Hocking's book in the The Guardian

33 Refers to a review of Judy Walker's book in a local paper

34-35 are an interview with Stanley Salmons (not a review) in The Jewish Chronicle and a review on a blog called TripFiction.

36-37 are apropos of Julian Simpson winning a non-notable short story contest sponsored by a Leeds-based charity and has nothing to do with the book he published with UKA Press. Number 37 is simply an excerpt from 36.

38-41 are a review of Tara Hanks's book in a local Brighton magazine + reviews in blogs and user-generated content sites.

Voceditenore (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for looking through all the references, that's quite a lot of references to dig through and it's greatly appreciated. - Sudo Ghost 15:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a few last words from me. I’d like to point out that the Wikipedia articles about even the largest publishing houses such as, for example, Random House, focus almost exclusively on references and external links to their own sites. It did not seem to have been deemed necessary to produce ‘third party references’ in their case. There is simply a list of divisions, branches and imprints. Harper Collins does have a list of ‘notable books’, although many, if not most of them, are far less notable than Brownlow’s. I find it a great pity that you seem determined to delete a (albeit small) legitimate Indie publishing house which now exclusively publishes the works of the UK’s (and probably the worlds), leading film historian, film-maker, television documentary-maker, author and Academy Award recipient, especially as we are hoping to publish two more Brownlow’s in the future. How It Happened Here, The Search for Charlie Chaplin and Winstanley, incidentally, are not simply ‘republished’, but are, in effect, completely different books, with different formats, covers, introductions and previously unpublished material, stills and photographs. I can confirm this with written confirmation from Kevin Brownlow if desired. By deleting such small presses as UKA Press, you are hammering yet another nail in the coffin of independent publishing in its struggle to compete against ‘The Big Boys’, who are already doing everything in their power to thwart and eventually eradicate what they see as ‘competition, at every turn. It is a great shame, and very sad, that you feel the need to assist in their (increasingly successful) efforts. Incidentally, Wills does not write for the Daily Mail.AndreaUKA (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about Wills. The other articles by her in the Daily Mail appear to be excerpts from her Omega Diet book. I've struck that bit. Voceditenore (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AndreaUKA, I think you are missing the purpose of Wikipedia -- we are writing an encyclopedia here, not advertisements. Regardless of the closure of this discussion, Wiki will not be "hammering yet another nail in the coffin of independent publishing." An encyclopedia is a summary of knowledge. While Wikipedia could potentially contain the sum of all human knowledge, to create a useful, readable encyclopedia, the Wiki community has decided to limit articles to those that are notable. TheMindsEye (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Harper Collins and Random House, while the current sourcing isn't ideal as you say, it probably would be sufficient to pass notability. And everyone knows these are among the largest publishers in the world (the largest for RH) so finding additional sources would be no problem, they are not borderline cases that attract notice to AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourcing is not sufficient to establish notability. Author does not understand that Wikipedia is th impartial. Claritas § 22:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m sorry, but that’s rather patronising. I understand what an encyclopaedia is. Note Wikipedia’s own definition: … a type of reference work – a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. 'Summary: A presentation of the substance of a body of material in a condensed form or by reducing it to its main points; an abstract'. And if you consider this article to be merely an ‘advertisement’, what do you call the Random House article which, as I said, simply lists their branches and imprints. Or the Harper Collins one, which lists (some of) their titles and…their branches and imprints. Does the fact that ‘they are among the largest publishers in the world’ make it acceptable, then? If so, isn’t that rather discriminatory? In the grand scheme of things, of course, it matters not at all if UKA Press has a Wikipedia article. I doubt if many (if any) sales have been generated through it. It will continue to publish books by excellent authors who otherwise may not have had a voice (Brownlow, to his enormous credit, deliberately went with an independent small press, in order to support the little man. I don't doubt that Random House,for example, would have jumped at the chance of publishing his work, and offered a huge advance into the bargain). I do think that Wikipedia itself will be just a little bit the poorer if it continues to delete perfectly acceptable articles. A publishing house is, after all notable for the titles it releases. Third-party references extolling the virtues of the house itself will, by definition, be thin on the ground. Thank you for your time.AndreaUKA (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AndreaUKA, your statements seem to contradict themselves. Earlier you said " By deleting such small presses as UKA Press, you are hammering yet another nail in the coffin of independent publishing...", and now you're saying "of course, it matters not at all if UKA Press has a Wikipedia article." This could make it difficult to weigh your argument in favor of retaining the article. Also, if you've identified issues with other articles, you should probably address those issues on the talk pages for those articles. Probably A Bad Guy (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't require the reliable third party sources to "extol the virtues" of a subject, merely to have written about it widely and in depth. Our notability criteria have nothing to do with worthiness, virtue, or talent. We have articles about worthless medicines, dreadful singers, bad novels, failed companies, forgeries, fraudsters, murderers, and traitors. Voceditenore (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SMP Wijaya Putra[edit]

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

Non-notable junior high school, no redirect target — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 18:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom; there's no claim of notability here, or citations to references which establish notability. WP:V is also not met. Nick-D (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Yin Fan[edit]

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

Autobiographical article which is almost entirely unverified and seems to be unverifiable. Not only does it lack sufficient sources to meet baseline notability, but the subject also appears to fail the professor test. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, and seems to be an autobiography and advert for someone. Mdann52 (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources to verify anything. Non-notable, as mentioned above. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of 8 is not enough for the highly cited field of biomed. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF. -- Scray (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Build a living economy[edit]

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

Asking for deletion as unencyclopeadic nominated as a7 however this is a "concept" so it didn't apply. Asking for deletion as not notable Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability or influence of this particular concept isn't established by the article's one source. Circumspect (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to refer to specific project of Alexandra Hayles et al. It is the subtitle of an article[6] but doesn't seem to have wider notability as a concept. The sole reference[7] doesn't mention building a living economy. There may be scope for an article on Hayles, or on the concept of a living economy, but on a quick search nothing appears obviously notable. Conclusion: Wikipedia is not for promoting a project, however worthy, and can only describe projects that are already widely discussed and notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this concept has general notability, rather than just being a phrase used by one author in one book. In fact, it could perhaps be a speedy deletion, as the article seems to exist to promote the concept. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteJust a big ad.Perhaps become section on books or author's pages, if they exist. Assistant N 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assistant N (talk • contribs)

Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources, very promotional in nature. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajshekhar Rajaharia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

PROD was removed by an IP. Not notable. Already deleted twice as A7 and once via AfD. Having cleaned this up yet again, there is nothing but a passing mention., even in non-English sources. My bet is self-promotion. NB: Special:Contributions/Aniljjn, Special:Contributions/Yolike and Special:Contributions/Raj0216. There may be something under Special:Contributions/Ptieditorindia also, although if so then it doesn't appear to us mere mortals because of past-deleted articles. Sitush (talk) 08:22, 5 Decembe

DELETE self promotion.no independent and reliable sources as pointed out by the nominator there is a Coi of the people who wrote it.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per Harishrawat11. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 06:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 06:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Promotional page. Google search shows no notable entry. None from News.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted (G11); the concerns about notability and WP:CRYSTAL are valid, but the article right now was nothing but a press/release ad for a nonexistent product. — Coren ^(talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTON X Console[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY. This is an unreleased console still seeking funding. One gnews hit. A few other commentaries can be found casting doubts on the console matching its hype; that wouldn't seem to contribute to true notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a scam (and probably is) because capabilities of console seem far too unrealistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.61.28 (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something might exist doesn't mean it's Wikipedia worthy yet. All that exists thus far is a Youtube video and a website. Agree with the anon above me - both its hardware and software capabilities are unrealistic to its price point. Once the developers release hardware prototypes to known third party reviewers for analysis, then it can be worthy of a Wikipedia page. Once they get as well known as the current console makers, then and only then can they have Wikipedia pages in place prior to a physical release. If I design a religion and then announce it, that doesn't mean it's worthy of a Wikipedia advertisement page. You have to have a following. Admiralthrawn 1 (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Admiralthrawn, The OUYA and the WiiU had pages before they were released into the hands of people. Being that the creator of the console had created other consoles that saw the light of day in the past, and I as an investor in the OUYA have yet to see a console, I don't see why this shouldn't be on Wikipedia.

Nat, there are many articles coming out this week on the unit. The same commentaries could have been said about the OUYA, which as said earlier, hasn't been released. How do I know? Because I bought one and it doesn't ship until March (Unless you're a developer, which your unit gets here this month). I don't see my liking of game consoles in general to be a conflict of interest. I own many consoles and study the history of them in my spare time. Unlike your COI with Charles Shultz's Peanuts, I have not made any money off of this product or any other product. This is merely a hobby of mine and I'm sharing information for those that are interested. This was never meant to be any sort of an advertisement. [8]User:3vix6 (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2012 (MST)

I am in no way ruling out this future device becoming notable in the future. Arguments about whether OUYA should have a page would belong on that page's talk page; the fact that something else currently has a page does not mean that this one should, as there are plenty of pages on Wikipedia that should be deleted for lack of notability. No one has claimed that you liking consoles in general is a conflict of interest; you yourself have stated in an edit summary "I actually am working with the creator and have been for better than a year to bring the console to light." That is a statement well beyond liking a category of things. (And when you claim your interest merely as a hobby, you have also described yourself as an investor in another console.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY, WP:COI, reads like an advertisement, and if you Google "OTON X", the first result is a NeoGAF thread about this being a scam. Ezhuks (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the fact that something else currently has a page does not mean that this one should" --> OK, please remind me of who made you king of the world? Last time I checked there are other people on Wikipedia than yourself. I'm sure I can find plenty of things that you're biased towards on all of your posts.

Delete it if you want Nat, I just was passing information that I had on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3vix6 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Kim's fifth studio album[edit]

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

Another WP:CRYSTAL violation that WP:NALBUM's advice that there shouldn't be articles about albums without confirmed release dates, tracklists, and titles was designed to prevent. It's unclear the the project really even exists. Most of this material isn't well sourced, and the stuff that is sourced isn't clearly relevant to any album that may ever be released. Article is littered with such delightful facts as "It is unclear however which project they were collaborating on" and "Although she is still without a label, Kim has stated in multiple interviews that she has 'a few situations on the table'", which certainly doesn't meet WP:CRYSTAL's standard of certainty. —Kww(talk) 03:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. Also, article seems to contain a lot of gossip and rumor type material. Chris857 (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER is an opinion essay, not a part of Wikipedia's structure of community approved Policies and Guidelines. As such, you're not presenting much of an argument for deletion here, since gossip and opinions may or may not be notable and properly sourced. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER is an opinion essay, not a part of Wikipedia's structure of community approved Policies and Guidelines. As such, you're not presenting a valid rationale for deletion here. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:HAMMER --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER is an opinion essay, not a part of Wikipedia's structure of community approved Policies and Guidelines. As such, you're not presenting a valid rationale for deletion here. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but would settle for Userfy) per WP:HAMMER --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER is an opinion essay, not a part of Wikipedia's structure of community approved Policies and Guidelines. As such, you're not presenting a valid rationale for deletion here. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Delete because this article exhibits problems similar to those trends mentioned in Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law, where articles about a forthcoming album that do not have a reliably sourced title are generally considered unsuitable for a standalone article at that time. Specifically, there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to currently justify a separate article from the main one on Lil' Kim, more specifically I see references to YouTube, SoundCloud, social network sites and blogs, which are all inherently unreliable, and for the few references, such as those written by MTV and The New York Times that are reliable, most don't appear in my view to contain significant coverage of the album's development. I am not inclined to !vote "redirect to Lil' Kim because I don't believe anyone would type "Lil' Kim's fifth studio album" in a search box. This MTV reference does specifically talk about the album, but it's a dead link, so I cannot verify the information present in it. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There ya go. No objections here. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator was not notified of this AfD. I have now done this. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:HAMMER has been incorporated into WP:NALBUMS: "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label.". "Per WP:HAMMER" is equivalent to referring to WP:NALBUMS, which is a guideline.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any closing administrator at AfD that allows an opinion essay to be WP:CITEDINALLCAPSLIKEITISPOLICY and employed as the sole reason for keeping or deleting an article is failing at their job. Essays are not policy, essays are not guidelines — the things that actually govern Wikipedia's deletion process — essays are opinions. Carrite (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any closing administrator that insisted that citing an essay that precisely reflects a guideline was invalid is placing technical concerns above reasoning. WP:BURO would apply. WP:HAMMER came first, and was so widely recognized as reflecting consensus that it was incorporated into WP:NALBUMS. Many editors continue to quote WP:HAMMER when the portion of WP:NALBUMS that is relevant is the bit directly lifted from WP:HAMMER. An admin is supposed to consider whether a view reflects policies and guidelines, not whether the view quotes policies and guidelines.—Kww(talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a closing admin sees an article with the title "x's nth album" and sufficient "Delete per WP:HAMMER" !votes, they have to report that consensus says the community considers the album is not notable for inherent problems as described by that essay. If they feel the !votes are not convincing, and can find sources themselves, they can cite them, !vote keep, and relist, ensuring another admin does the close, but I can't honestly think of an AfD where a WP:HAMMER hasn't been near-unanimous. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I apologize for the chaos regarding the creation of this article. I created this to provide a background for the album, anticipating a release in the near future. Other users and guests have vandalized the article with false information and sources, which I recently tried to clear up. Feel free to delete the article if it does not meet your criteria. If it is decided to delete this however, The Queen's Command EP should definitely be deleted as well. Vi0l8t3r (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to apologise. Nobody will think anything less of you at all for having an article arrive at AfD. It's happened to me, and probably a large majority of long standing users have had articles they've contributed to proposed for deletion. As I hinted at earlier, an admin can move the article into your userspace where it will be kept safe from deletion. By the time the album is released, there will be many more sources around confirming the name, the track listing, reviews in major music magazines and so on, which suddenly make all the arguments here invalid as it's now notable. I know we have a bit of a laugh with WP:HAMMER, but all it really means is your article isn't ready for prime time Wikipedia yet. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temptations (film)[edit]

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

Poorly referenced, non-notable film article. Written in a non-encyclopedic tone with excessive detail. - Mr X 02:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:FILM standard of wide distribution, board cricital review, major award, etc. (A Yahoo search shows that this was copy/pasted from one of several adult movie sites. But why give the copyright people more work when we already know where this is heading.) Blue Riband► 03:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have a feeling that this might end up being a snow delete. A search brought up zero sources that would give this film enough notability to merit an article. It exists and is associated with people who have articles, but that's pretty much the extent of the coverage that this film has received and that's not enough for it to pass WP:NFILM.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NF. Gongshow ^Talk 08:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FILM --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rotten Tomatoes has nothing. IMDb lists 3 user reviews and a link to epinions (a site that publishes reviews by members of the public). If this was any kind of a cult favorite you'd find results on Google and Google Books: Google Books has only 2 results which are to non-online texts but appear to be listings/directories, one of which is from Katholisches Institut für Medieninformationen (an organisation unlikely to provide a balanced critical assessment). The director has made 1 other film, so he's unlikely to be notable either. And what's up with the first 2 sentences of the plot summary? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails WP:NFILMS so badly it scares me. There's nothing out there on this one, notability-wise. §FreeRangeFrog 01:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I had hoped that by working with search parameters (above) other than that provided by an AFD template, something more might be found, even if in non-English sources.... and THEN issues with article format and sourcing might be addressed. But nope. It exists. It was distributed. It was screened. One can still find it. But no reliable sources seem to have paid it much note at all. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the film had at least one other hit than IMDb I might consider a weak keep, but delete yes. Etobgirl (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt title:[9] (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prelive[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable or non-existent film, without any references. - Mr X 02:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for no references and no verification that it meets WP:FILM. Blue Riband► 03:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google returns exactly one relevant result, which is a casting call. No signs of notability whatsoever. Ezhuks (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here whatsoever. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOO SOON. As found and offered by User:Ezhuks, this film only recently finished its casting call. Without evidence to the contrary, I think it is safe to assume that principle filming has not finished (or even begun). Lacking enough contextual information in this unsourced stub, we cannot even search for news about its writer, director, producer, or main cast. If ever completed and then receiving coverage, an article on this film might be worth considering... but now? Nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a book case of non-notability. At least, not yet. Cavarrone (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Investing Meme[edit]

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

Article about an internet meme, or non-notable neologism. Could find no reliable sources. Possibly a hoax. - Mr X 02:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete This almost borders on patent nonsense. I think it might be a form of vandalism. It looks like parts of the article were cut from somewhere else. It's very odd. Certainly not something for Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism per WP:NEO. The article and its creator's edit history strongly appear to be an attempt at promotion of a non-notable website. Altered Walter (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of a Center Which Is Neither Dead nor Alive[edit]

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

~~Article about a musical recording that fails notability per WP:NALBUMS~~. - Mr X 01:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added sources (Allmusic, The Wire, PopMatters, and Daily Herald) to the article; enough coverage exists to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 08:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn - Based on addition of sources. Could an uninvolved user please close this? - Mr X 13:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doga (Dog Yoga)[edit]

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

Based on a cursory search of Images and References this appears to be a trend localized primarily to NY. The only source is a dead link reporting this trend. Due to lack of reliable sources I recommend this be deleted on grounds of failing to pass WP:GNG the only alternative is merge with dog training! BO | Talk 00:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. A cursory Google search reveals an abundance of news articles about dog yoga; I've added a very small selection of them to the article. A bizarre fad, yes, but definitely notable. And it certainly isn't localized to New York – see, for example, "Dog yoga takes Taiwan by storm" (ChannelNewsAsia). DoctorKubla (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News stories cover a period of 6 years. No passing fad, meets general notability guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive press coverage across several years, include outside the USA. What DoctorKubla has added is just scratching the surface in terms of sources (as a search through any newspaper archive would reveal) Moswento ^talky 13:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in Washington Post (May 23, 2012), Globe&Mail (May 14, 2012), Tampa Bay Times (April 22, 2012), The Mirror and the Sun (January 6, 2012), The Nation in Thailand (October 23, 2011), Daily Telegraph (October 21, 2011), Sunday Mail in Australia (October 2, 2011). Similar hits for coverage going back to 2003. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adequately sourced as it sits to clear GNG. Not sure why this was challenged... Carrite (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Headdesk; why is this at AfD? It's amazingly stupid but it's notable stupid. — Coren ^(talk) 19:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Stars poster[edit]

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

Overly promotional cruft on a poster. Part of the COI creators spamming herself into wikipedia into multiple different places. It's a big mass of coatracks and association using multiple references that verify related aspects but have nothing to do with the subject. (note that Betty Guillaud was the Times Picayune gossip columnist.) The external link section is just a linkfarm for people associated with the poster. (Contrary to lie in the articles page history the speedy G11 was not declined, it was arbitrarily overturned because someone had previously asked for a prod refund). per WP:5P. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, ...". This is so clearly a violation of the first pillar and should be blown away. ignore all rules to stop the rot. Stop Wikipedia from being overtaken by vanity spam to preserve its integrity. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see where the first source, the USA Today article looks as if it actually talks about the poster but the rest of the sources seem to be predominantly about the stars performing. If we could find proof that the poster is actually mentioned in-depth in the articles then that would be slightly different but the titles of the articles as well as the stuff I'm finding in a search show that this poster is usually only mentioned in passing, if it's mentioned at all. Most of the sources I'm finding are things that have been inserted by users into various social media sites or various spam sites. I'm honestly not seeing where this particular poster is so overwhelmingly notable that it deserves an article all to itself. If Omni Attractions had an article then this might be worth a mention there, but I'm not seeing where this site honestly deserves its own article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found some mention of the USA Today article, but it looks like it might have just been a brief mention: "Southern Stars, a poster-size collection of childhood pictures of famous living musicians from New Orleans and Louisiana, has been printed in a limited edition of 1,000. The star-studded poster, which took eight months to construct, features early pictures of Fats Domino, Gatemouth Brown, Frogman Henry, the Neville Brothers, Frankie Ford, Ernie K-Doe and dozens more. Some are calling it a work of art. But instead of being sold, framed and autographed copies of the poster are being given to anyone booking one of the musicians through Omni Attractions, a local talent agency." In other words, it looks like it's one of those one-off 1-3 sentence blurbs that appear in various papers and not an actual in-depth article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just can't find anything that specifically mentions this poster that is in-depth, independent, and reliable. I can find various social media sites that mention the poster (mostly linking back to one of the editors that created the page) or one or two semi-reliable sites that very briefly mention the poster in passing, but nothing that would show that it passes notability guidelines or is such an icon that it would merit an entry. It's simply not notable enough. The talk page tries to rationalize that being hung in a Hard Rock Cafe shows notability, but the thing is that the HRC will often hang posters from various concerts, tours, and whatnot. This doesn't mean that the poster is independently notable of the band/concert/etc. I just don't see proof that any of the in-depth coverage that the original editor is claiming is out there actually exists or is as in-depth as they claim it is.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability of the poster is not established. If the agency that issued it is notable then it could be mentioned there. Most of the article is not about the poster itself, but about people that have some connection to it. BigJim707 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of best-selling music artists. MBisanz ^talk 17:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records)[edit]

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

The title of the article violates TITLEFORMAT as there already is an article named List of best-selling music artists. Also, the sections 50 million to 69 million records was trimmed based on consensus about two months ago due its large size.--Harout72 (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bottom threshold has to be set. We would all agree that a list of every artist that sold a million records would be ridiculously oversize, and that list of every artist that had sold 500 million would be excessively rarified. Based on the article size, it would appear that the agreement to set the threshold at 70 million is in the right ballpark. I don't think the argument based on title formatting even begins to be persuasive, though.—Kww(talk) 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 5. Snotbot t • c » 00:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into main article of List of best-selling music artists. Generally, the title of the article not violates TITLEFORMAT. Also, there was no clear consensus to remove content from Wikipedia (Trimming), but only to reduce the size of the main article. Not counting the author's opinion, user Gabe19 - did not specify how, Jax 0677 support splitting, Bluesatellite and Krystaleen support trimming. This is not clear consensus. Sorry, Harout72; your big changes have been made after two days of discussion and between only four users. Too fast. Please give more time for discussion rather than 2 days and quickly change. Should be more opinions from more users. PS. According to dates, has only been two weeks, not months... so you can safely and calmly continue the discussion. Subtropical-man (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there was no clear consensus.. and where is the consensus to split and create this new page? You even didn't care to discuss it first with editors who are more familiar with the topic for years. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge into List of best-selling music artists - Without delving too deeply into it, this appears to be a fork, or a continuation of List of best-selling music artists. How deep do we really need this list to go? The generic article isn't all that long, and with some reference formatting could be a manageable size. I'm really unsatisfied with the random branching, not to mention incredibly awkward titling. Having lists like this is fine, but I don't see any need for it to be branched out like this. And we need to establish some lower limit on the best selling artist criteria. At least when they're on the same page they're easy to reorganize (and certainly that reorganization will need to happen frequently). Shadowjams (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, Merge back into List of best-selling music artists is good concept, I also support this. Subtropical-man (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purely technical note "Merge" and "Delete" are effectively the same thing in this instance, because the article was split. There's no history or content to preserve.—Kww(talk) 00:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but merge means undo new controversy changes, thus is a good solution of the problem. This data there should be, in main article of List of best-selling music artists or separate article. If there is not a separate article, to merge back into main article. Subtropical-man (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only option here is either "keep" or "delete". This problem started due to the super-large size of the article, so "Merge" is not and will never be a good solution. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, per previous discussion, and No merging per WP:SIZE. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bluesatellite, Harout72, and previous discussions. What's the point of the page? There are only a few artists listed on the page and it's largely unnecessary. — Gabe 19 ^(talk ^contribs) 03:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Divide. Instead of deleting them, why not divide the who;e article into two pages, page 1 with artists selling 100 million records and beyond and page 2 with artists selling 50 to 99 million records??? Many artists from the list are only popular in selected countries only (think of Hikaru Utada, Ayumi Hamasaki and B'z) and to delete them would definitely this article not show to the public the rapid changes in the industry. So I suggest we divide and not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.135.161 (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Divide.Some artists are significantly relevant for music industry, especially for their own genres that may not be as popular as the listed on higher figures. Such as Nat King Cole, The Monkees and Ayumi Hamasaki. They should be there at least. --196.40.10.134 (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand that divide = keep. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have to draw a line somewhere. (and who would ever search for such a term?) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus and WP:SIZE precluding a merge. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split apart "List of best-selling music artists" and keep this article or delete "List of best-selling music artists" and this article - If "WP:SIZE" is an issue, then we need to split "List of best-selling music artists" into several articles. The goal of Wikimedia is to expand on the sum of human knowledge, which is why we should keep this article. If we do not keep this article, why should "List of best-selling music artists" be kept?--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dividing up the list in this way seems reasonable, but i agree there would be many ways to do so. It makes sense to separate the most famous from the merely notable, and for a subject this large, perhaps an intermediate group makes sense also. But the content is relevant, making it into a list arranged by number sold is relevant and encyclopedic. Trying to figure out the divisions at the AfD for a particular one of these is not the productive way to handle it. I see no reason why there should not be similar lists by major genres as well, not instead of--we're not paper, and can do our lists in whatever ways are helpful. The general question of what size article is appropriate for the wide range of devices and transmission speeds WP users employ is a much harder question--the range is so much greater than it was 10 years ago. If anything, that range is a reason for doing large lists both as single lists and as split lists, because there's no longer a universal size. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing it by genre or country would be a nightmare, DGG. We already have genre-warriors that insist on constantly edit-warring the genre of individual songs based on things like a review saying something like "reggae-tinged", which some interpret as being enough to cause a song to become "reggae" and others do not. The prospect of artists being constantly removed and added from dozens of lists based on individual editors arguing about whether they are a crunk/glitch hop artist or merely a southern hip-hop artist makes me cringe.—Kww(talk) 15:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To above editor and IPs, please note that it is "List of best-selling music artists", not "List of record sales by notable music artists". To be a notable musician does not have to be one of best-selling artist. Janis Joplin is a legend in blues music, but she's not a huge records seller. As for artists who are only popular in certain countries, like Ayumi Hamasaki or Utada Hikaru, then you should include them on the best-selling list of their respective countries (in this case List of best-selling music artists in Japan). Bluesatellite (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not merge - I agree with Blue above me. This should not be merged, but deleted. The original page this was taken from is already far too long and detailed, therefore there is no reason to create its own page. In fact, when I think of "list of best-selling artists", I picture the select 10-30 artists who've sold as much, not a list with 200 names. And no, merging and deleting are not the same thing. Merging would mean we re-add this portion to the parent article.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My point in making that comment is that even if someone closes this as a "merge" (which I don't advise), there would be no need to keep this title as a redirect or to retain its history. All the history is already in the parent.—Kww(talk) 19:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. Merge is also a good brainchild. Franek K. (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of common misconceptions. MBisanz ^talk 17:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Urban Legends[edit]

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

Contested PROD without comment. Essay/synthesis that fails WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, WP:DISCRIMINATE among others. §FreeRangeFrog 05:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's rationale. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 07:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with rewrite The article at the moment isn't very useful but the topic of urban legends spread through the internet is a legitimate one[10][11][12][13][14], from Usenet and email to websites and social media (compare faxlore, urban legends spread by fax and similar machines). There are lots of modern books about urban legends which discuss the internet, as well as internet-specific books such as Pamela Donovan, No Way of Knowing: Crime, Urban Legends, and the Internet (Psychology Press, 2004), Anne P. Mintz, Web of Deception: Misinformation on the Internet (Information Today, Inc., 2002), and academic papers on internet urban legends[15][16][17][18] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ Per nominator, fails various policies across the board. trivial. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and improve and rewrite, agree that this article's topic has received significant coverage in multiple different reliable secondary sources including many books. — Cirt (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 00:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Colapeninsula has demonstrated notability of the topic. Reliable sources are out there, if not in the article. While the article has insufficient citations and reliable references, it appears that these are surmountable problems. The article should be kept, as AfD is not for cleanup (WP:NOTFORCLEANUP). Mark viking (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the article may need a significant rewrite, but the topic is worthy of an article. AutomaticStrikeout (Evidence) 00:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question I might be willing to change my opinion if somebody can demonstrate to me how this article will warrant it's own article separate from the Urban_Legends article that already exists. It seems to me that at the very best, "Internet" Urban Legends should be a short section within the main article. Can someone explain, please, why we need this as a stand-alone artcle? This article reads like a POV for creepypasta.com In fact if you remove all of the creepypasta stories you are left with a stub. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fair question. I agree the article is weak on references and is essay-like in places--reducing it to stub would be an improvement. But it's my understanding that whether an article deserves to exist depends on whether the topic itself is notable, i.e. the existence of multiple reliable sources, some secondary. Colapeninsula's refs 1 and 5-9 are by all different authors in peer-reviewed journals and refs 6-9 are specifically on internet urban legends and internet folkore. Ref. 1 is an AJR article that I think qualifies as a secondary source. The topic of internet urban legends seems notable, which argues for keeping some form of the article. Mark viking (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per OP and Sue Rangell. Mostly consists of a list of unreferenced urban myths and other information. While most of the individual examples aren't notable anyway, the phenomenon of Internet urban legends existing is certainly not notable (at least, not according to any of the references). – Richard BB 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One internet urban legend is that anybody can write about anything on Wikipedia. There are no logical parameters for inclusion here. One person's common misunderstanding might be another person's urban legend. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or, rather, Merge this small article into Urban Legend. Note that several discussions have occurred in Urban Legend talk page, and have determined that WP will not (yet) contain a list of urban legends (WP:INDISCRIMINATE and all that). Bottom line :there may be some valid material in Internet Urban Legends, but it would be better off presented as a subsection within Urban Legend. --Noleander (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it thought that AfD was not for fixing articles. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE With allof the creepypasta.com ads removed, there is nothing left but a stub containing info that is already mentioned elsewhere. Let's just delete it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment The article has been nicely cleaned up by Richard BB. True, it's more of a stub now, but it is much improved and the references are out there to further develop the article. The topic is still notable. Mark viking (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark viking, you only get to !vote once in these discussion, though you can comment as often as you want. First Light (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, and thanks for the correction Mark viking (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I did clean a lot of it up, I'd like to point out that I've still voted for a strong delete above. – Richard BB 08:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of common misconceptions. I think it's safe to say ALL urban legends propagated since 2000 or so are "Internet urban legends." Faustus37 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Faustus37. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya 1100 series IP phones[edit]

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

Disputed prod a year ago, article is written like an ad and I am finding difficulty locating in depth coverage in reliable sources No unique names 05:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable product range and spam by stealth. These Avaya article where created by overly enthusiastic editors, SPA accounts and spammer. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Alan Liefting, Really? You are making

very grave allegations against a group of unnamed wiki-editors. Are you saying that all 16 editors who contributed to this article are ‘’’overly enthusiastic editors, SPA accounts and spammers’’’, or did you mean to single out only specific editors and if so who? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created the article was overly enthusiastic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by my claim of "grave allegations". Stop flogging a dead horse Ottawahitech. There is enough other stuff for our energies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan Liefting, It is not a dead horse I am worried about, but rather elephants let loose in china shops. But should you be addressing me in this manner in the first place? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "addressing me in this manner"? I did not address you per se. I merely gave you some advice. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of an elephant in a china shop. A bull, perhaps, but we now know that's not even something over which to worry. --No unique names 00:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how this is different from product pages from numerous other vendors (Cisco, Linksys, 3com, and others). Suggest larger effort to re-write Avaya product content to be more factual/historical and merge into a single Avaya products page. However, not sure how to get that done... in the meantime, I feel this should be kept and flagged for improvement to remove any marketing fluff. Pjhansen (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That's not a reason to keep, though. --No unique names 18:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point and can't say I disagree. However, I'd hate for this content to be lost due to deletion when really what's needed is a solid re-write/re-org (out of scope for deletion requests, I know). Pjhansen (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about the loss it can always be userfied, before of after deletion. If can alls be recreated from scratch. There is not a lot of substance to it. But anyway, there is no loss for an article that is way outside the purview of Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or delete and redirect to the brand article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge this article and Avaya IP Phone 1140E at a new article located at Nortel IP Phones. The history section of this article has some interesting information, and is a reasonable example of how a Wikipedia article about a product or line of products should not resemble a catalog. The product-specific listing and press releases used as references should be removed. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr, your suggestion above would have made sense except that what you call the Avaya IP Phone 1140E is really Nortel IP Phone 1140E, in other words it was an IP-phone designed by Nortel, the defunct Canadian company, not Avaya. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe Avaya IP Phones is a better merge target; the design history of the Nortel pedigree of some of Avaya's phones would be an interesting paragraph in the article. VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr, the problem is there is much more to the history of this article, Nortel, Lucent and Avaya that the people supporting this deletion seem to not have an interest in. For example if you check this parallel discussion taking place right now and look at the article in question you will discover that it is about a PBX manufactured by Lucent since the late 1980s, not by Avaya which was founded in 2000. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not how this (or any) product's development history is relevant to the decision regarding keep/delete/merge the article. VQuakr (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ due to insufficient sourcing. I will also add that the cumulation of all these product articles is disturbing and quite frankly spammy.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable compromise to avoid having articles on individual models. Articles on major product lines from major companies is entirely justified. There information, not promotion--its the articles on individual models that are apt to verge onto promotion and should be discouraged. So far from the combination of the product articles as spammy, it's the antithesis of spam--suitably sparse coverage. Dividing it iup into individual articles is what's often spammy.Reducing it below this level is removing information. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of developing a consistent direction/consensus, what do you think of removing the "1100 Series" from the title as suggested above? VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, how can we justify keeping this one article about an Avaya product when at least fifteen other similar pages (mostly consisting of historical Nortel products have already been deleted, and others are still outstanding in one of the many Wikipedia deletion processes as we speak, after being nominated for deletion by either by User:Nouniquenames or by User: Alan Liefting? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The justification is that having made an error is not precedent for making further errors. Many of the other deletions for individual products should have been merged; for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Secure Router 2330 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya ERS 2500 in neither does a merge appear to have been even considered, Notable products deserve their own articles; borderline-notable products from major companies deserve substantial coverage in a merged article. It's not just a guideline, but part of deletion policy, that merge is always preferred to delete, when a merge is feasible and appropriate. I try to never argue or close for delete in a situation where a merge might be possible without explaining why I think a merge not suitable; all product articles from notable companies are potentially mergeable, so I think such arguments should be required before deletion of product articles, and explicit consideration of them required in all such closes. The closes I refer to above were against policy, as are most delete closes of similar products. They should normally be merges. DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that many of the merges that were carried out were incorrect and inadequate, because only the name of the product was merged, without any additional information; that's a destructive merge, sometimes called a smerge, and I consider doing this needs to be specially justified because it's otherwise against the most fundamental of all our principles, that we are an encyclopedia: for encyclopedias are not just lists of names, but provide information. I urge people to start by slowly are carefully expanding every item in the product list in Avaya to at least identify the product line, and then to expand to include each significant individual product--as uncontroversial routine facts, the company's own sources are sufficient for that. they wouldn't be adequate for a quality judgement, but they're adequate for saying what it is; if there are reviews, they should of course be referenced. There's good arguments to give why the individual products shouldn't be extensively discussed, or why every possible variation should not be included, but there are none to say why the major individually named products shouldn't be described. NOT CATALOG is often cited, but it prohibits only listing prices; NOT ADVERTISING specifically permits objective information; WP:N does not refer to article content, so none of its provisions are relevant. NOT INDISRIMINATE isn't actually relevant, as an examination of the examples will show: what it is actually about is requiring context. There is thus no policy requiring or even allowing us to omit such material, or for permitting such destructive merges. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Still more Avaya spam. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Susan, how do we distinguish Ayala spam from proper articles about ayala products? DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One would assume by using notability guidelines. --No unique names 01:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Wikipedia does not need an article about every little product that Avaya ever made. Most of these articles are PR-driven, and that is not good. How is this product notable outside Avaya? It's not. It's just another product. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Sue Rangell (and -Nouniquenames+Alan Liefting), if you are truly concerned about spam why do you keep nominating and supporting deletion of legacy Nortel & Lucent products instead of joining the quest to roll those articles back to their rightful (and defunct) owners? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the lable doesn't change the contents. It's still spam/cruft/a product directory, and it still doesn't belong here. --No unique names 11:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is the part of the notability guideline that talks about spam? The notability guideline has nothing to do with article content, and says it has nothing to do with article content. I see in the WP:N lede: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." Where do you think the notability policy says otherwise? As the guideline says, the notability guideline is a guideline to one thing and one thing only, whether something is suitable to be the subject of a separate article. Spam is another issue: consider something which clearly is, like the iphone 5, about which there are dozens of detailed reviews from RSs/ It is possible to describe it in a promotional way, which would be spam, and possible to describe it neutrally. Spam is using non-promotional language, or hyping the features, or using and naming it as an example in every article on phones. On the other hand a non-notable product, such as some specific cover for the iphone5, can be described in a non spammy way, also. There is however a correlation, which is that the content of an article on a non-notable product is often spam as well, and I have even proposed that we take this into account at AfDs where neither spam nor lack of notabliity alone would be a sufficient reason for deletion. That's why NOT says in the Advertising section that "articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable". (And even there it says "typically," and it's part of the explanation , not the policy--and products are not one of the examples used. Rightly so, since any product can be described in neutral language.) It does not help the discussion to throw in names of guidelines that have not been read carefully enough to see that they do not apply., as your nomination does.

As for your other asserted policies: The example for businesses at NOTDIRETORY says "an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings" (Agreed, it should contain only the one relevant to its business.) This article is not at that level of detail, it does not list the patents that might apply. It does not contains a statement that the article should not contain a list of all the company's products, but I would agree that it should not; It should include only products with some degree of significance, Nor does it say anything about articles of products. What does say something on articles on products is NOTMANUAL. But the detail here is much less than the full manual, which for a product like this is typically the size of a large book. (Even the consumer's manual for my very simple phone is 175 pages long) You could argue the article should be half the length, --but that's irrelevant to having a full article & certainly irrelevant to having a merge of a reasonably substantial section. You say "cruft", a non-ecxistent policy or guideline. It redirects to WP:FANCRUFT is an essay discussing what it defines in the lede as " content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question" I don't see the relevance of "fans" to products of this nature. A related essay WP:TALKCRUFT says "Many Wikipedians use "cruft" as a shorthand term to describe content that is inappropriate for Wikipedia". Thus, saying it as a rationale is saying It doesn't belong here because it doesn't belong here. I suppose you mean "obviously inappropriate" , but it is not obviously inappropriate, because it's been challenged. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as avaya is a large company who's products are used it could be seen as notable especially to telecom historians. I disagree that this is spam, But agree is it unsourced and requires modification Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article combining the different IP phones of Avaya. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Connetquot High School . MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Connetquot High School Plot[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BLP1E. No long term media coverage, one event at one school in one moment in time. No historical significance beyond the local community Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a little bit of this back into Connetquot High School where there's already a brief section about this incident: newsworthy, mention belongs in the high school article, but no need for a separate article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS. §FreeRangeFrog 23:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Arxiloxos. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (or Merge) - This is indeed a notable event, but the article is small, and there is already an article on the high school at Connetquot High School. It should be merged into the latter. A REDIRECT link could be placed at Connetquot High School Plot, linking to the school article. --Noleander (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Park Inn Hotel Prague[edit]

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

Except for this link (which may or may not be reliable), I could not find enough coverage except maybe travel sites like TripAdvisor. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the sources you added, the only one that is truly about the hotel would be this, and it's rather promising as well. The other sources, while reliable, doesn't appear to be significant coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. That Prague Post article would be sufficient to establish the company's notability, but not this individual hotel. - filelake shoe  19:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to insufficient sourcing.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danzelle St Louis Hamilton[edit]

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

Not played a full international or in a fully professional league. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD template was removed with no reason given. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's played in one of the grey-area leagues, but I can't see him passing WP:GNG, so it won't be enough to keep him. [19], [20], [21] and [22] are all sources I can find on him, but these are all local-area newspapers, not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient sourcing.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG, as he hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwell time[edit]

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

The newly created version of this page is not up to Wikipedia standards and it was agreed in 2010 that this topic was not noteworthy enough to be included as its own article. Andrew (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a recreation without utility. It's also totally incomprehensible. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pulse-Doppler radar#Principle as it appears to be a concept part of pulse-doppler radar. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a close, maybe exact copy of the Radar basics - Dwell Time web page. I am not enough of a lawyer to determine if this is a copyright violation, the page seems under the GFDL. With no reference, it is still plagiarism. Mark viking (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At best this needs expert attention. Is this strictly a radar topic, or perhaps in the larger realm of physics, or what? Where are the categories? Faustus37 (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general term that refers to the time that a moving system is at rest. I am drafting the new page "Dwell time (military)", which refers to the period in which soldiers are allowed to remain at home between deployments. It's used in many different fields, including juggling. Andrew (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to multiple meanings for dwell time, the Dwell disambiguation page may be useful in sorting these out. Mark viking (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY Delete per WP:COPYVIO per Mark viking's discovery above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2012–13 Real Madrid C.F. season. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Real Madrid C season[edit]

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

Not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Not covered by reliable sources. Cloudz 679 14:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 14:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to 2012-13 Real Madrid C.F. season. I would do exactly the same with 2012–13 Real Madrid Castilla season. And, in fact, with any previous seasons, I would merge them into the main Real Madrid article for that season. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect Lukeno94 is absolutely correct here.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - This article is not notable per WP:NSEASONS and should be deleted, not merged into 2012-13 Real Madrid C.F. season. Having a redirect from this article to the first-team's article might be in place. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Roberts (footballer)[edit]

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

Not played a full international or in a fully professional league. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD template was removed with no reason given. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Until he makes the Premier League and/ or the Wales national football team ... Faustus37 (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For info, he does not have to make the Premier League, he has to make a fully professional league, which could be any of the Premier League, Championship, League One or League Two...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Faustus37 (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Links[edit]

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

Speedy deletion template removed by an IP, however the {{advert}} tag was added. Much of this article is about the issues this organization aims to tackle, and all non-primary sources are about thise issues, not about the organization. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's creator, I can assure you that there are non-primary sources concerning Green Links; however, since the majority of news reports discussing the project are over 10 years old, they are now archived and not free to the public. With time, I am sure I could locate articles that are free to access that could be used to cite information on the Green Links page. -User:Jmil158 —Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can look for pages archived by Wayback Machine at Internet Archive: Wayback Machine.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is of sufficient notability. Note that it is a project rather than an organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable project. No indication that this is other than a lcoal project using standard methods. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad the Impaler (song)[edit]

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

I found a couple of sources (in Dutch) that establish that the song exists and that the band has played it, but not that it charted or is otherwise significant. They can't all be zingers. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very minor hit, but with the video also receiving coverage, and given that every other single that they have released has a standalone article, I think this is worth keeping. Coverage found (mostly brief): NME Video blog, MTV Romania, Daily Record review, Rolling Stone, NME, NME. Enough to have well-sourced short article at least. --Michig (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Or to have a much-better referenced section in the main article... Drmies (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this was the only single from the album I would say merge there, but the trouble with merging there to expand that article (or the one on the band) would be that there would be more content there about one of the band's least notable singles than there would about the others, as those all have separate articles. --Michig (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who gets to decide what's "notable" enough to warrant an article? This song is one of the band's best known songs and if you take a look at their setlist stats you'll find that they have played at at pretty much every single gig since its release. The chart position says nothing about its popularity, the reason it charted low was that the song had already been released for free as a teaser ahead of the album. Plus the official video (starring Noel Fielding) is one of their most famous ones. Bellmouth (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Who gets to decide what's "notable" enough to warrant an article?" - The community does. That's why we're here discussing it. --Michig (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We all get to decide. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONG - The sources supplied above notwithstanding, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and this one seems not to be an exception to that rule, based on my searches Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Blanco[edit]

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

The article is extremely poorly sourced, and indeed I can't find any WP:RS out there to establish the notability of this drummer. Appears to fail WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish I were seeing it, with the blizzard of references there, I'd hoped to find two that each met the reliability, independence and depth requirements of WP:GNG, but I didn't, nor was I able to find one on my own. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got tired of looking through all the references for something applicable. If there is something in there, they should have focused on that. Maybe somebody can point something out. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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