Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 February	27 February >

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 speedily deleted under CSD G3. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official Genius Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable awards ceremony. I was not able to find any reliable sources to establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant hoax and I have tagged for CSD G3. Safiel (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I really can't see any support for this even existing. Anywhere. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:24, 27 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2Tube[edit]

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

Short lived tv show, non-notable JayJay^{Talk to me} 23:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and lacking in-depth coverage in WP:RS. If WP:RS are added to the page, feel free to ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see any reliable news sources to support the statements. Minima © (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage anywhere Wikishagnik (talk) 18:37, 4 March 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Nightmare (novel)[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NBOOK. Reviews exist, but none I've found (including the ones cited in the article) appear in reliable sources; they're all user-submitted. Nothing suitable that I can find in mainstream press and media. Withdrawn, see below Yunshui 雲‍水 22:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll see what I can do. Hopefully there's some somewhere. (Although I'd be happy just to take the Klausner review off. She's a joke.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep. A lot of the reviews are hidden behind paywalls, but I managed to find some that weren't and added them to the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Nomination withdrawn in light of sources found by Tokyogirl79. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:07, 29 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrol Malek[edit]

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

The available sources just proof that he exists and plays football. No proof that he ever played as a professional player. (At least in latin script) Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this confirms he has never played in a fully-professional league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL - also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as already state, he has not played in a fully pro league, nor has he received significant coverage. As such, this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:41, 29 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gage incorporated[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Couldn't find any third party citations to establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete spam Andy Dingley (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Created by block-evading IP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although it alleges media recognition, it's so poorly written as to be nonsense. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:40, 29 February 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facundo Arguello (tennis)[edit]

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

One day fly. Only appearing once in an ATP-organised event, as partner in a double play. Fails WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I personally agree with Night's statement, I must say keep because he did play once in an ATP250 tournament and thus fulfills WP:NTENNIS. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I may also personally agree, this player passes long-standing and consensus-made notability guidelines at Project Tennis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs)

Request speedy close as keep Overlooked WP:NTENNIS. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:36, 26 February 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) B music ian 03:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natuk Vivekananda Vidyamandir[edit]

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

Unsourced school article. No hints of notability or sources in Latin script available through Google Search. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the oldest school in Ghatal subdivision, ghatal (completed 125 year). also the name of the school is present in the list of WBBSE affiliated schools and WBCHSE affiliated schools. As one of the oldest higher secondary school in Ghatal, I think this article is suitable for wikipedia.--Soumitrahazra (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the external links, but the article needs independent third party sources. In effect, websites from the school itself, the WBBSE or the WBCHSE are not sufficient. And the sources must be relevant, not sources that the building served as a polling station or so. In this case very important: Sources don't have to be in English or latin script! Sources in the local language (Bengali?) and script are also sufficient! Happy hunting! Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WBBSE and WBCHSE are independent of this school. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For confirming the existence of a high school, the local board of education list is entirely sufficient (it is a reliable, third-party source). As High School are taken to be notable by default, the article should therefore be kept. It would, of course, be great if it could be expanded further, but stubs are also part of wikipedia. Francis Bond (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, highschool are not notable by default. Just like every other article they have to satisfy WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no article has to meet WP:GNG. It is a guideline not policy and, as it states, "occasional exceptions may apply". We have plenty of topic specific guidelines that obviate the need to meet WP:GNG and there are a whole bunch of topics that, by consensus, are considered to be notable. TerriersFan (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - consensus is that high schools are notable because experience shows that, with sufficient research, sufficient sources can be found to meet WP:ORG. In the case of Indian high schools, little material is put on the Internet, so to avoid systemic bias time should be given to find local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary schools are generally considered to be notable. Nominating secondary school articles for deletion is generally a waste of time since the same arguments will be trotted out on both sides and the article will end up being kept anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, "an AfD is a waste of time" is not an argument when the closing admin has to decide about keep or remove. I hope that admin looks at the merits and sources of the article en realizes that much heralded "consensus" is in fact rather shaky. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, "it's not notable because I say it's not and if I disagree with a consensus I'll claim it isn't really a consensus" is not a valid argument either! -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the persistent, solid, non-shaky consensus over the last few years that verified high schools are suitable topics for Wikipedia articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Solid, non-shaky? Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Secondary schools should meet WP:GNG or are they exempt? tells another story... Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that all polls in that discussion did not meet WP:CONS. Are you claiming that consensus was met? I think consensus is required to overturn eight years of precedent.-- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 01:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:OUTCOMES#Schools is clear on this issue: "most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 00:57, 4 March 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. Fram (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Trivalry[edit]

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

This term exists, but it doesn't warrant a standalone article. Sports journalists frequently use word play in their articles, but that alone doesn't make it notable for an article. This article is just a rehashing of the same materials that are already in the existing rivalry articles of these three players: Federer–Nadal rivalry , Djokovic–Nadal rivalry and Djokovic–Federer rivalry so it is redundant. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC) MakeSense64 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rivalries are already borderline articles and allowing multi-participant ones to be created will flood the pedia. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When over the course of several years the press and fans keep talking about a particular Rivalry, that's when wiki takes notice that maybe something special has happened that warrants a stand alone article. The Trivalry is not it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Right on. The google news search gives only 6 hits for this term, which is evidence for the fact that this is not a widely used term, especially since so much has been written about these three players over the years. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think it should just be merged with List of tennis rivalries, as it is of some importance. Popsiclesare (talk) 08:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rivalries between these three players will be in the list once we add the men, and a footnote can be added that they were called "trivalry", but to merge this article into that list would create a serious undue weight problem. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:16, 29 February 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. Fram (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moti Horenstein[edit]

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

Article fails to show the subject meets any notability criteria (WP:GNG, WP:MMANOT, or WP:MANOTE). The only sources in the article are the two I added showing his 2 first round losses in the UFC. Papaursa (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided, leaning towards delete I don't think anyone would disagree the article itself is an unsourced pile of junk (well, unsourced until aside from the additions the nom made). In looking to see if I could find anything on Horenstein I found a primary source[www.mhka.com/index.php/hanshi-moti-horenstein-mainmenu-27] which suggests he has won championships at the "International World Oyama Karate Open Championships" and the "King's Cup Muay Thai World". I know very little about martial arts competitions in general (I'm lucky I know as much as about just MMA), so I don't know if these are significant competitions that would apply towards WP:ATHLETE or not. I was able to find one source that offered more than a passing reference[1] and two with passing references [2][3]. Toss in his film/tv credits and a a weak passing of WP:MMANOT this is a very borderline case I think (though possibly leaning towards delete). It'll take someone some real work to find references. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I can't find the championships mentioned by TreyGeek in any sources not concerned with Horenstein. There is an annual one night event in Thailand called the "King's Cup" to celebrate the king's birthday, but it's not a world championship (it's not nearly as prestigious as Lumpinee or Rajadamnern) and I found no evidence to indicate Horenstein has ever participated. I found no evidence of any championships that aren't primary (or based on primary) sources. The two first round losses in the UFC does not quite meet WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of his opponents are notable, he fought in the UFC, defeated Pat Smith. Is also a well known krav maga practitioner outside MMA. Article is fairly well written and sourced. - Thai Striker (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

struck comments by sockpuppet of banned user (see ANI discussion concerning Thai Striker) Papaursa (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Losing all your fights, except one, doesn't make you notable. The only sources are merely fight results (WP:ROUTINE) and he doesn't meet WP:MMANOT. There's no support for any claims of notability. The sources I found that would support notability claims all seem to be primary. Mdtemp (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference I found on the web is about a generally poorly rated Kharate Academy. I don't think this person is a notable sportsman as he has not participated in any world tournament so far Wikishagnik (talk) 18:58, 4 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Linger[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. He has no appearances in anything except local or regional MMA events and there are no independent sources to support notability for either GNG or WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to Sherdog this person has only one professional fight. Assuming they are correct (and usually are) the person fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:MMANOT and also fails WP:GNG since I couldn't find any other sources on this person. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sherdog (the only sources) shows 1 fight--a 12 second knockout loss. Even if the other fights in the article happened (and there's no sources for them), there's nothing that shows he meets any notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 19:19, 29 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Chatting[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Plays in the English Isthmian League, featuring semi-professional and amateur clubs. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails both WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, Chris, Matty and Giant. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG by a long shot. --Jimbo^[online] 09:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:39, 29 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sifu Murat Kaplan[edit]

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

This appears to be an autobiography with no indication of notability. The only claim to notability seems to be that the individual is a member of a number of martial arts organizations (WP:NOTINHERITED) and I don't believe that meets any notability criteria. There also seems to be no independent sources about him. The only sources show his various organizational memberships. Papaursa (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE and the given sources aren't truly independent. Also, if the article is kept it should be renamed since Sifu is a title, not a proper name. Astudent0 (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any claims that seem to meet any notability criteria. There's also a lack of reliable sources. Mdtemp (talk) 17:25, 1 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keka[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines.

Keka is a trivial frontend/GUI for the p7zip archiver (most of the tasks implicitly attributed to Keka in the article are in fact performed by p7zip).

It is neither particularly well-known, nor is it sufficiently significant as a software to merit its own article.

The article appears to be little more than an advertisement/self-promotion initiated by the developer of the app ("aOnez"). It is perhaps also worth noting that the article was started less than two weeks after it was first released.

Kcapture (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: neither from internet nor from the article I see any indication this software meets WP:N, not to mention WP:NSOFT. A typical case of WP:MADEUP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced software article, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as potentially spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:12, 28 February 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. Socking is through out this. The only thing left (including looking at the comments) is keeps. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Plotkin[edit]

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

Notable for only one event and does not pass test for crime perpetrators. This article is malicious, sensationalist, and creates serious reputational difficulties for a living person. Jonathansterling (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)— Jonathansterling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 February 26. Snotbot t • c » 19:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. As the nominator said, WP:BLP1E is a major factor here. Subject does not warrant an article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC) (comment withdrawn 01:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Strong delete. The subject fails both the general notability guideline and the specific one-event only notability guideline. The subject also fails the notability guideline for crime perpetrators, as the victim of the crime was not a renowned figure and the crime was not a well-documented historic event. Finally, the primary writer of the article does not follow a neutral point of view and provides multiple unsourced and dubious details. Jackadvisor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC). — Jackadvisor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. The subject may well pass WP:CRIME: the crime was a high-profile one,[4] extensively covered in reliable news sources, and mentions continue to show up from time to time.[5] In any event, I can't see any significant NPOV problem with the current version of the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is NOT a single incident, rather it was a large conspiracy involved in stealing $6.7 million, over a fairly long time, for which Plotkin was convicted on 9 Federal counts. I hadn't run into the the TV program before (American Greed), but it makes sense that a series of crimes so brazen (and in the end so ridiculous) would get it's own TV immortality. As far as widespread news coverage: just following the link above there are stories in The New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, the Harvard Crimson, Bloomburg, Reuters, Sydney Morning Herald (Aus), The Australian, CBS, ABC, CNBC, Fox. I was in Europe when the story broke so I must have gotten it in the Financial Times, or Wall Street Journal Europe (likely both) - but I guess those stories aren't linked in Google after so long.

I also have to say that the method of trying to delete this article was completely bogus. First 75% of the article is deleted, leaving nothing about the crimes or anything else notable, then the deletion tag is put on it. When challenged on this method, 90% of the article was then deleted and the tag put back on.

BTW User:Jonathansterling and User:Jackadvisor were "both" the deleters and seem to be both new accounts and SPAs. May I ask if there is a conflict of interest here? Smallbones (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User Smallbones is the primary writer of the article in question and offers a biased viewpoint. Certain details of the article, such as the subject's collegiate experiences, are not corroborated by any outside source, which suggests that user Smallbones either personally knows the subject or made up those details. In either case, user Smallbones' motives are questionable. With respect to the so-called widespread news coverage, almost all of that coverage represents reprints of the same story in different outlets rather than independent reporting establishing this as a historically significant event.
Strong Keep Completely disingenuous nomination with deletion of content used to try to pull the wool over our eyes and nominate it in a completely dulled form. Block both accounts listed by Smallbones for gaming; the article stands on its own merits in its original form. I have informed C.Fred to have a second look at the article as it is now, and I have added a further source. Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BLP1E is only for individuals who remain low-profile; arguably, Plotkin is not a low-profile white-collar criminal. Additionally, the argument can be made that he isn't notable for only one event, given his professional ballroom dancing and his film career. Even if the content were to be merged to an article about the crime, it should be retained. See also the talk page of this AfD for comments not related to the merits of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Smallbones is the primary and only main author of the article, so his argument for a strong keep appears to be self-interested and spurious. At the time the article was nominated for deletion, it had been restored to its original form, so no attempt to "pull wool over the eyes" was made. Plotkin does not have a notable ballroom dancing career, as he is not even listed among leading ballroom dancers (see ballroomdancersinfo.net), nor does he have a notable film career (see imdb.com). The only possible argument for notability relates to the insider trading. However, the insider trading is not even among the top 50 such crimes in terms of monetary gain. While it received news coverage, that news coverage was solely contemporaneous and much of it resulted in reprints of the same story in different sources. As such, it does not pass the litmus test under the well documented historic event guideline. Further, note that the majority of the insider trading section relates to actions not taken by Plotkin specifically, but by his alleged co-conspirator, Pajcin, and other individuals, none of whom have a Wikipedia entry. The focus on users Jackadvisor and Jonathansterling is a transparent attempt by Smallbones to change the subject from the valid concerns which they raise relating to the article. Why does user Smallbones wish to keep this article at all costs? Does he know the subject personally? Another key concern is that the subject of this biography is a living individual who may suffer very real fallout from the information presented in this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtrinity (talk • contribs) 03:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Tomtrinity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment It's pretty blatant sources were removed in order to influence the nomination in a certain direction. Jackadvisor's "updates for accuracy" removed half the article's content, half the sources, and makes it seem the subject got off scot-free, when that certainly wasn't the case. The nomination was clearly made in bad faith in order to sugar coat the facts and no issues with the article existed before they came in and began to remove article content. Nate • (chatter) 03:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable crime. Sourcing satisfies WP:N. (And who doesn't love a story wherein a retired seamstress in Croatia making $270 a month, makes millions in insider trading, via her young relative in the US?) Edison (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea of a seamstress making $270 a month making millions in insider trading may indeed be a "story", but Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for sensationalist stories. It is an encyclopedia, not a yellow rag. Moreover, the seamstress' relative is Pajcin, not Plotkin. Yet, he does not have a separate article. In fact, none of the other individuals in this case have their own article entries, which strongly suggests that this crime was not particularly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onemakestwo (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete If the crime is notable, it should be listed under a crime rather than a person. Where does the information come from regarding where the subject lived during college and who wrote his recommendation? This is just one example of the lack of a neutral point-of-view. There are clear problems with this article. Limitmore (talk) — Limitmore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Delete What makes this notable again? The money was frozen and recovered and the article makes it sound like everything that was done involved somebody named Pajcin, so Plotkin's actual role is not all that clear. In addition, there is not much said about any positive aspects of the subject's life, with most of the focus on this scheme and its various participants. This does not belong as a standalone bio. — Janusjane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Delete The strongest arguments in favor of keeping are made by user Smallbones, who is the primary writer of the article in question. Smallbones seeks to shift the discussion from whether the article passes the guidelines for BLP to the way in which the article was nominated, which is irrelevant. The question of this discussion is whether the article itself should be retained or deleted. As user Tomtrinity explains above, the article does not meet the guidelines for a well-documented historic event, which is prerequisite for crime perpetrators. It also does not follow a neutral point of view. It states that the subject attended the California Institute of Technology where he lived in Fleming House and then transferred to Harvard thanks to a letter of recommendation for Professor Scott Page. What is the source of this information? It is not in any referenced sources. This strongly suggests that the writer of the article either knew the subject intimately or is making up this information for an unknown reason. Since user Smallbones is the primary writer of the article and the main defender in favor of keeping it, the arguments made by this user are not relevant to this discussion.— Onemakestwo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. As a matter of information, the questioned "background" material was added by an anonymous IP editor on 23 March 2008.[6] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The government froze all the money, so this crime is kind of like a guy who robs a bank, but before he can leave with the loot, gets arrested at the front entrance. Hard to believe that a failed attempt at insider trading can be considered notable. Not to mention that getting tips from Business Week and getting tips from an investment bank had been done many times before, in the exact same way, so there is nothing unique or unusual about this crime. This is probably why there was no sustained media coverage, but just the usual mandatory stories about the arrest and the sentencing. --Steppenmast —Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC). — Steppenmast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Delete The argument made in favor of keeping this article has to do with the notability of the crime. However, in that case, there should be an article about the crime rather than about this subject. Further, my problem is that in every main part of the crime, the article states "Plotkin and Pajcin" did this and "Plotkin and Pajcin" did that. There is no clarity regarding Plotkin's actual role. Given that Pajcin cooperated with the government, what this likely represents is Pajcin's version of events in which he would have aggrandized Plotkin's role and minimized his own, which is also the version that the government would have fed to the media outlets. Given the clear lack of independent reporting in this case, as evidence by the repetitive nature of the news stories, this article is almost certainly prejudicial toward Plotkin. A lot of the main people involved in this crime are Croatian and that suggests that Pajcin, who is also Croatian (whereas Plotkin is not), would have played a much more central role that suggested by this article. So I agree that a careful reading of this article and the underlying reporting shows a very apparent lack of a neutral viewpoint. The article should be deleted. --Robertenza —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC). — Robertenza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG--BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consider that WP:BLP is more relevant than WP:GNG in this case. [User:Trebuchet35|Trebuchet35]
Delete Not a notable crime as none of the individuals got more than 5 years of prison time and none served more than 4. There has been no follow-up in the media, suggesting no interest beyond the contemporaneous. Given the size and sentence lengths of many financial crimes, from Enron to Bernie Madoff to Galleon Partners, this is a drop in the bucket. [User:Trebuchet35|Trebuchet35] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trebuchet35 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Trebuchet35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Came upon this quite by accident and saw the name and KNEW who this was immediately, which is a strong argument for keeping this article. File this under "can't believe it would even be nominated for deletion". This was BIG national news when it happened and received around-the-clock news coverage. Someone said the "victim" was not known -- but the "victim" is all of us. Anyone who commits insider trading is making deals with infomation that the rest of us don't have, thus the crime. It is "all of our money" that they are stealing with this information. I don't think it is relevant to consider how much time the individuals spent in prison (whether they served one day or four years); that should not be criteria for deletion. If someone commits a crime like insider trading that is this high profile, it is going to be written about and has been written about extensively. What I can't believe is that there wasn't already a Wikipedia article on this person! I agree that the article needs more work overall and better citations, however. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To say that the victim is "all of us" is to misrepresent the reality of insider trading and to misunderstand the economics of this crime. The only individuals affected by insider trading are those on the other side of the trade with the insider. A person who does not invest in the stock market or, more specifically, in the individual stock being affected by particular inside information, is not victimized. Insider trading is a common crime dating back to the 1920s and this particular instance has actually received a lot less coverage than many others which are not represented on Wikipedia. However, as numerous others have noted above, if the crime is notable, the article should be about the crime rather than one specific perpetrator. -Trebuchet35
Keep. Plenty of independent sources suggest he is notable, despite the sentence for the crime being quite short. Pirsq (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request I hate to suggest bad faith, but a few of the above proponents of deletion have similar writing styles and phrasing, and at least one may be single-purpose. Could a checkuser please investigate? As to the AfD at hand, I support a rename of the article - as some above have pointed out, the crime may be more notable than the criminal in this case, so renaming it something like Goldman Sachs insider trading ring (2006) and removing all information about Plotkin not immediately relevant to the crime (for example, it is relevant that he is a Russian immigrant and that he graduated from Harvard, but the fact that he ballroom dances is absolutely not relevant). - Jorgath (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: I do support keeping the information about the crime; it is definitely notable, whether or not Plotkin is. - Jorgath (talk) 05:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We know there's an SPA pattern; see the AfD's talk page. Nate • (chatter) 05:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think everyone besides the sockpuppets believe that this article should be kept, also the sockpuppets arguments aren't even compelling. JayJay^{Talk to me} 16:47, 29 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electrocities[edit]

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

Being published and having and ISBN does not make it notable. There is a patent by this name, found here but that is not owned by this reputed copyright owner. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I dont think that it is enough important to be included in Wikipedia. Yasht 101 19:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably promoting a self-published book (a bit pricey at $19.95 for 126 pages). Peridon (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no "probably" about it--author is Eberkus (talk · contribs). HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 20:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tesla "wireless energy transfer" used for nefarious purposes? Not sure if the references found so far support WP:N, but it is definitely a book I would read given the opportunity. It currently ranks #4,281,404 in sales at Amazon, which is pretty low, but it has 2 good user reviews there, not that they count for anything. Similarly worded user reviews ("Eric Berkus writes this book using his experience in Casino Management, knowledge of technology and his experience as a pilot") are found at a number of online sites. Edison (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If asked for an opinion, I would say that both those reviews come from fairly close to the author. This doesn't only happen with self-published works, either. I never trust fulsome praise in a review. It might sell better if it were a bit cheaper. 126 pages is a slim paperback for $20. Perfumes sell more if priced high, but not books. I don't know how far down Amazon sales rating goes for current works, but that's not the issue anyway. Peridon (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Print on Demand book, see Atlanta Nights and J.K. Rowling and PublishAmerica's unfulfillable promise - far too many articles use books from this 'publisher'. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current content more appropriate to a dab page. Both topics appear to fail WP:GNG. -- Trevj (talk) 13:43, 5 March 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) B music ian 03:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Adelaide School of Dentistry[edit]

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

Promotional tone; dubious notability. There's nothing in the article to indicate that it deserves its own article, separate from the University of Adelaide main article. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normal editing can remove the "long and distinguished history of innovation," "intent to remain at the leading edge of best practice." "long and distinguished research history," "most advanced dental research centre in the southern hemisphere" type puffery and promotional language. Seems to satisfy notability as a School in a recognized and accredited major university. Edison (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the puffery I found objectionable. Edison (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia can provide a neutral encyclopedic summary of this topic. Let's do it. --99of9 (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with 99of9. The problems are not with notability but article quality, and that alone is not reason enough to delete. --LauraHale (talk) 05:41, 29 February 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 sources just don't stack up the one RS is for the less notable electricity theft rather than the SEG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Searl Effect Generator (2nd nomination).--Salix (talk): 08:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Searl[edit]

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

This article is about an inventor whose sole claim to fame (if that's not too strong a term) is having invented the Searl Effect Generator (this raises concerns about WP:BLP1E). The standard of sourcing is atrocious for a WP:BLP, and my own searches were unable to find anything better. I found only a few, distinctly fringey publications that might just about qualify as sources about his invention, but they contained nothing of significance about him. The subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Jakew (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources appear to only exist for John Searl on the electricity theft which is WP:ONEEVENT and also minor: it does not reach notability. The SEG appears to fall short of notability (I couldn't find any decent sources). Google books and Google scholar on the SEG only shows up with some fringe publications. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A stack of SPS. Delete it. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems that he is not WP:BLP1E since he has both the invention of the SEG and the electricity theft conviction which are only tangentially related. I agree that the sources leave a lot to be desired, and there is lots of self-published material (SPS), such as the documentary. The article has been around since March 2006. So I guess the real question is: Is he a notable crackpot? Based on fringe sources, I would say he is. SPS can legitimately be used for personal data such as birth, etc. --Bejnar (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AfD; are you suggesting fringe sources help establish notability? This seems pretty counter-intuitive since usually significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are required as per WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do suggest that a volume of independent fringe coverage could establish notability. It might not be reliable as to the truth of statements, but still be an indicator of notability. Of course here the best sources would tend to be debunking ones. --Bejnar (talk) 07:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that, if a subject is only discussed in fringe sources, it becomes impossible to write a properly sourced article that satisfies the requirement of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE that we give the most weight to mainstream perspectives. Given a choice between giving undue weight to fringe perspectives because mainstream scientists consider the subject too silly to mention, or not having an article, it seems that the latter choice is a better fit with our core policies. This isn't a notability issue per se, but policies & guidelines do need to be considered as an whole. Jakew (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Fringe sources aren't reliable sources so they can't and shouldn't be used to establish notability. Fringe sources are, by their nature, typically minor websites etc as well, so they are not prominent either. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Meco has just restored the text of the badly sourced Searl Effect Generator. I would suggest including this into the AfD as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That article has been nominated previously, though it was ultimately kept. I personally think that a mistake, and would support another AfD, but I'd prefer not to combine the two as I think there may be a case (albeit one which I wouldn't agree with) for keeping the invention but not the inventor. Jakew (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now started a separate AfD for the SEG. [7]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge Searl Effect Generator here; the large number of references to Searl in the WP:FRINGE literature suggests some notability, although obviously his device is rubbish. -- 203.171.197.232 (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references currently in use are not reliable. WP:GNG requires signficant coverage in reliable sources. These sources don't exist so the article is not notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Times is not reliable? Are you kidding? -- 202.124.89.209 (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting we base the whole article around John Searl being an electricity thief? This seems a relatively minor mention and not something to base an article on. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - it appears that he's only notorious because of one fringe-y invention. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the Times will sometimes report something trivial, and his crime is certainly of that nature. Nothing else he did is of significance. Neither he nor his claimed invention are notable, much less the two of them put together, sicne the only additional material here is the very minor crime. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 8 March 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vue on Apache[edit]

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

This is an advertisement for a non-notable building, plain and simple. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a blatant advertisement. Tone is not NPOV. Information appears designed to sell property, not encyclopedic. No claim to notability, the only link being almost a footnote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely promotional and no evidence of notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that the current article is more or less pure promotion. The building, however, appears to have some notability (or at least notoriety) for its relative luxury[8] and its party lifestyle. From the Arizona Republic, a couple of weeks after the building opened in 2009:

The ritzy resort-style residence was the site of 85 alcohol-related arrests over the weekend, a number that Tempe Police Lt. James Click has never seen with that sort of concentration. He said the complex had the atmosphere of an upscale club: On a weekend night, the chic modern-styled building had a line of people stretching "dozens of feet" out the door, while security checked guests' IDs.[9]

And a similar story from the Republic in January 2010:

Residents and guests threw eggs at police from a seventh-floor balcony Wednesday, prompting officers to make 25 underage-drinking arrests at a swanky high-rise apartment building across from Arizona State University's Tempe campus.The incident offered the latest example of what Tempe police say has become a persistently dangerous situation at the Vue on Apache, a private off-campus housing complex that opened in August.[10]

In September 2011, ASU's student-run paper, the State Press, had this to say:

Luckily, one needn’t go far; that party exists on the campus’ doorstep, and lasts all weekend, every weekend. The Vue, commonly referred to as ‘Club Vue’ by its residents and regulars, is an upscale apartment complex just outside of campus. Yet, even without explicitly designating itself as a student-housing complex, it is one. According to the FAQ on The Vue’s website, "The Vue is privately owned and operated and is no way affiliated with ASU. Because of the location and lifestyle, many of the tenants living at the Vue attend ASU." Each Thursday, Friday and Saturday night, The Vue becomes one of Tempe’s most exclusive nightclubs, although many of its guests are less than 21 years of age.[11]

So I'm not sure if the building needs its own article, but this sort of continuing coverage suggests to me that some content about this building belongs somewhere in Wikipedia's coverage of ASU. At minimum a merge and redirect to Arizona State University at the Tempe campus#Residence halls (which section might be retitled "Student housing" to more clearly cover this off-campus de facto dorm) would be in order.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That just seems to be local news stories; nothing that makes the building notable. A redirect may be an option, but I don't think an article on the building is necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encyclopedic notability. As for a redirect, I don't really see how we can include it in the university article when it is not a part of the university. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it a little more and learned that the Vista del Sol complex[12], already listed at Arizona State University at the Tempe campus#Residence halls is another campus-adjacent, privately-managed luxury complex similar to The Vue, except that the University was involved in its development and it follows dorm living rules.[13] although it still seems to have the same sorts of issues as The Vue and some other similar complexes[14][15] Given all the articles, I thought we might add a sentence or two mentioning the availability of large-scale off-campus luxury accomodations that were considered de facto student housing, and that this had led to occasional controversy (citing articles like the ones mentioned above). But if no one else thinks this is worthwhile, I'm certainly not going to press the point. I do wonder why we couldn't have had some places like this when I was in college, though.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject not notable, while the text is mostly promotional. Tylko (talk) 20:59, 8 March 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 Closed as article has been deleted already. Peridon (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valyoo technologies[edit]

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

The notability of the company is not clear. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't look notable to me. I've tagged for speedy. It was previously tagged for copyvio of the 'about us' section of the company site. That had so little on it that I wondered whether a quick rewrite had been done - I've seen that happen before now. Could just be a mistake by the bot - not seen that one before. Peridon (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the owner of the bot. Peridon (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the About Us section has multiple tabs; between them, the entire History section is a copyright violation, though not a blatant one: it's close paraphrasing at the least. Same for the other two references. I meant to list this article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems last night but apparently did not? (And will not now that an AfD is open.) Cheers! — madman 22:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was speedy deleted and has been recreated by the subject who appears to have a close connection to the organization and is not notable and the article is promotional in addition to close paraphrasing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:59, 26 February 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 Samir 05:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Morris (chess player)[edit]

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

This chess player is not yet notable enough. While he is certainly showing promising results, so far he has not won any significant international tournament (say, Corus Steel or Linares...), he has not won the title of "FIDE grandmaster" (which is typically considered as notable on Wikipedia) and he has not represented his country in major international competitions (like the chess olympiads). SyG (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC) SyG (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator, the subject of the article has insufficient notability. Most IMs will have similar achievements, including Elo 2500+ performances and successes at junior level. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have noted, this person doesn't fit the notability criteria for chess players. In terms of active play, he is an unexceptional IM, and has done nothing else in chess that would merit an entry.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed I requested Wikipedia Deletion Review on Dec 3, 2013. Reasons given were "James Morris again won the 2012 Australasian Masters international chess tournament, and survived a widely-publicized motor vehicle accident which drew a lot of media attention." The outcome was to endorse the deletion.

Garybekker (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pevos (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atara (genus)[edit]

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

Seems to be a misspelling of Rapala arata. No sources, no links. Pevos (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect No, it's really Atara, which the Natural History Museum states is a genus of Lycaenidae, Zhdanko 1996. Citation added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Chiswick Chap's reference seems to demonstrate that it is indeed a genus. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, it seems to be one of a number of synonyms of Rapala (butterfly) (genus) so a Redirect seems to be in order. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, I've found Atara arata (Bremer, 1861) in this source --Pevos (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And since that confirms that that species is certainly a synonym of Rapala arata, we should redirect the genus to Rapala forthwith. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted a text User:Dysmorodrepanis wrote (see diff) in the disambiguation page of Atara. So we could keep it as a kind of "informed redirect". --Pevos (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:04, 26 February 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. Consensus is clear for delete; no need for a redirect can be established. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It Must be Nice[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Catpowerzzz (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tired of arguing about this one. I've trimmed the links to blogs and unreliable sources, (and the creator keeps reverting) but in the end, this is exactly what wp:crystalball is meant for. No reliable sources are talking about this, and I have no idea if they will for this short. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was a frivolous and vexatious nomination for deletion as you can tell by the submitter's comment "tired of arguing". "Tired of arguing" is not a reason for deletion of material, but shows vexation as a chief motivator for his submission. The user Dennis Brown who submitted it for deletion did so out of malice, merely to end a discussion and/or perceived edit war. This is not the proper forum for that. The article could be improved as all articles can be in the future, and he made comments to that effect prior to submitting it for deletion. He also made statements on the Talk page of the article prior to submitting the article that said "if he wanted to submit it to Afd" he would have (when he first came upon it). He only submitted it LATER out of a vexation with the discussion and/or perceived edit war when he did not feel it was all going his way. I think this article qualifies for a WP:SPEEDYKEEP. I suggest that the user withdraw this article from consideration. See the comment below, "Dennis Brown was wrong to remove those new references for the given reason, so I have reinstated them. He is absolutely wrong to claim that an article must be "frozen" at the state it started AfD. by Boing! said Zebedee which confirms that Dennis Brown tried to claim the article was "frozen" and that no changes could be made, including adding the sources that he was requesting. He had deleted all sources and content from the article prior to submission in a vexatious way to make the article "stub-like" and appear to be without sources. He then misinformed this user that I couldn't change the article or put back the references that he had deleted. That seems to be malicious and not in good faith. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had misunderstood Dennis Brown's edit summary - he had not intended to suggest an article should be frozen for AfD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can always be reposted if and when reliable sources cover it. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Delete. I can only see primary sources used here. The others that have been removed appeared to be largely irrelevant, about the people rather than the film itself, or blogs etc. I've done a bit of searching and I can't find any reliable third party coverage of the film itself. Once released, if it gets suitable coverage, it would be eligible for its own article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Chris Innis. There's just not enough coverage of this film right now to warrant having an article. Notability is not inherited by having notable people act or direct in the film and most of the sources I do find are primary or trivial, neither of which can be used to show notability for an article. This is just a clear case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. When the film gets released it might achieve enough notability to have an article, but it doesn't have that right now and to be honest, it might never achieve that. Shorts don't always manage to get noticed even with an amazing cast and director. This might be well served as a redirect to the director's page and if the original editor wants to userfy it until it can pass notability guidelines for movies, I have no problem with that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. WP:NRVE, and with the lack of sources here we unfortunately cannot meet this standard. This short film may well turn out to be WP:N, but it is impossible to tell at this time. Some of the cast and crew certainly are WP:N, but WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NFF provides important guidance here as well: "films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" and "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". I don't know what phase of production this short film is in, but WP:RELIABLESOURCES are required to meet the aforementioned criteria. Merging a sentence into Chris Innis may be appropriate; per WP:FUTURE: "until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable". -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 14:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This request for deletion is in violation of WP:FIVE, "Good faith" has not been assumed by the other editors. Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone per WP:SIMPLE. Still, this article does not meet one single criteria for speedy deletion WP:SD. Regarding notability: this article has followed all the rules of notability for film articles. The filmmaker is notable per WP:BASIC, and WP:ENT, being a recent Academy Award and BAFTA (British Academy Award) winner (with multiple published secondary sources verifying that) and the film stars another Academy Award nominee, a very famous actress Karen Black as well as other notable actors who have significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows and/or like John LaZar who has a large "cult following" per WP:ENT. The article also meets the requirements for inclusion and notability for film articles WP:MOVIE under "other evidence of notability" as follows: "The film features significant involvement by a notable person". The film notability requires that there are at least two independent sources to substantiate the article - and this article supplies THREE independent sources (one additional source). Two of the sources are interviews done by independent media outlets at the International Press Academy's own Satellite Awards. This is an awards show to honor the best films of the year, a show put on by the press, for the press and covered by the press. That is about as reliable as it gets as a source. The third cited reference is an article with "cult" actor John LaZar notable as per WP:ENT. It is a high bar to set for a film that has not been released, but this film has met that bar and surpassed it. The threshold for inclusion of a film article for a "future film" is that the film must be past the stage of "principal photography" per WP:NFF and have been confirmed by reliable sources and meets the notability requirements, which it does as above. The evidence that the film is out of the stage of production is the official web site of the film which shows photos of the film during principal photography and on the "news and updates" section of the web site, states: "The film has completed principal photography and is currently in post-production" here: The Official Web site. Furthermore, there are numerous short films that have not been scrutinized to the degree this one has, which has to beg the question of the motivation of those who have nominated it for deletion and/or who have repeatedly deleted content from it. Here are a few examples: This example only has one reference cited, which is "IMDB." Here is another one which only uses its official web site and the imdb as sources and and one obscure film festival with not very well known actors and director. And here is yet another example that has no reliable sources and which has not remotely been given the scrutiny this article has. WP:HOUND states that it is unacceptable for an editor to disrupt another user's enjoyment of editing for "no overriding reason," as there is clearly not grounds for this aggressive nomination for deletion. The above suggestion by Sailing to Byzantium that it be merged into Chris Innis is also not acceptable, as merging would create too large of an article there. This article is notable enough to warrant a stand alone page and if the editors who ganged up to delete it would stop deleting content about the "cinematography" and other pertinent content, the article would be more fleshed out (and would not appear stub-like just so that they could nominate it for deletion by making it appear that it has no substance). Oh and by the way, none of the above users has been a part of the discussion of the film nor contributed to the article aside from the one who has nominated it for deletion. He claims he is "tired" about discussing it but nobody made him do that -- he took it upon himself to agressively delete this material. Again, you have to question the motivation. Thanks for your consideration. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nobody is ganging up on the article. This is how AfD works and just because people are not agreeing with your opinion does not automatically mean that we're acting in bad faith or that we have an agenda against this movie. People look at the article and then try to find enough reliable sources to show that the film meets WP:NFILM or WP:NFF. In this instance the movie met neither requirement and we can't keep an article that doesn't pass these guidelines. If you truly feel that any of us are acting in bad faith, please feel free to take it up at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment (Response). Dennis Brown has deleted all of the sources that you are requesting. When I told him to put back the sources that he deleted, he refused stating that, "that's the way it was when it was submitted" for consideration for deletion. No, that's the way it was when HE decided to submit it. If you want to see the independent sources that were cited, which were not just the official web site, please revert back the article to my last edit or the one before that. If I do it, he or Ckatz are just going to revert it. I told Dennis Brown on the talk page that it would be obfuscating if he were to continue to strip the article of its sources and/or external links during an Afd deliberation in order for him to create the misconception that there were no independent sources. He (and Ckatz's) apparent goal was to game the system by presenting a stub-like article with no sources to you guys for consideration. That's what I mean by not using good faith and being dangerously close to WP:GAME if not a text book example of it. Look, the bottom line is that even aside from the independent sources we have (2 media interviews and one print article in a magazine) and then the official web site, we have met notability because the filmmaker is a recent Oscar winner. If the bar for notability is going to be set so high as to exclude Oscar winners, then I think Wikipedia needs some new "rules." But of course, it has become the "Lord of the Flies" Wikipedia and is no longer the Wikipedia of the people. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Dennis Brown was wrong to remove those new references for the given reason, so I have reinstated them. He is absolutely wrong to claim that an article must be "frozen" at the state it started AfD. In fact, editors are encouraged to improve an article during an AfD discussion, and any new sources added should be reviewed before the AfD is closed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a look at the new references...

"Official web site - It Must be Nice short film" - not independent.
"Mingle Media archived Interview" - interview with the director is a primary source, does not establish notability
"Nyne Magazine, UK, Interview with John LaZar" - interview with a star is a primary source, does not establish notability
"Amanda Fuller Talks..." - interview with a star is a primary source, does not establish notability

So, sorry, but I really don't think any of those helps to establish notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't interviews establish notability? They're not primary sources if the interview is conducted by a third party. If someone posted an "interview" on their own website or Facebook or some such, I could understand, but an interview by a newspaper or magazine, surely, should count as independent third party coverage. Right? Before a movie is released or made available for critical reviews, the only way to get information about it would be to contact those involved with the project. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions look awfully thin: one link is to a video from a blog site. In the Nyne Mag interview the subject mentions the movie briefly, likewise in the video interview at Mingle Media; the mentions are promotional, and don't constitute coverage by objective sources. In sum it's an attempt to piece together notability from scraps, since there's not a single expansive piece of coverage from a reliable source. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply For instance, the Mingle interview doesn't establish notability because the interview wasn't about the short, it barely mentioned it at all. It wasn't really an interview anyway, it was a reporter with a mic from yet another website that basically caught Chris walking by, asked her the basic canned questions for 53 seconds. Fails WP:SIGCOV for starters, plus it doesn't help that it is on YouTube, where verification is always tricky. If this had been a actual scheduled interview by a reliable source that was about the short movie, it would be a completely different story, and would be perfectly fine to establish notability. To put it in perspective, the "interviewing" company didn't even bother putting it on their own website, and searching for the director "Chris Innis" returns zero hits on their website. Yet the "reference" was added again after being deleted several times. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine, and good explanations from both of you. I was just concerned at the seeming suggestion that interviews per se could not establish notability. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted back. Those had been deleted by myself and an admin a few times (the history shows this). The original rational is valid, that they are not reliable sources. I did not say you can't add sources to an article in AFD, which would be absurd, since I do it all the time. In fact, I wasn't treating it any differently than any other article, regardless of AFD status. Why I am being accused of this, I have no idea, but again, the histories clearly show otherwise. I did comment on his rationale, but it didn't overcome the previous rationale, that they fail RS. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response (to Response) Thanks for looking at that and for noting that Dennis Brown was wrong to suggest that the article is frozen at the place he last reverted it. Notability is established also by the Wikipedia internal links. The main filmmaker has recently won an Academy Award. The stars of the film are notable and award-winning. One is a cult film star John LaZar and per WP:ENT that also qualifies for inclusion. Notability has been established on multiple levels even aside from the sources. Academy Award winning filmmaker period end of story. Cult film actor. Double down. Academy Award and Grammy award nominated actress. Triple threat. Director of Photography was DP on numerous recent high profile films as well as having been a camera operator with David Lynch, Tim Burton, and others. Four. Star actress, Amanda Fuller, is recurring player on this season's hit t.v. series Grey's Anatomy. Five. Six, Clu Gulager is an actor who has starred in just about every tv show EVER. He was featured in The Last Picture Show which is also a cult film. Seriously, how many levels of "notability" does a film have to hit to be considered worthy of inclusion? This is not just some Youtube video off the street. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry if I misunderstood Dennis Brown's edit summary. But I really do think it is better not to remove sources added during this AfD discussion, and instead let people actually review them. It will do no harm at all to have a few non-RS sources for the duration of the discussion, and at least it should counter the "They're censoring me to make sure it gets deleted" argument -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Catpowerzzz, you have put quite a bit of work into writing that message. Unfortunately, however, much of what you write either misses the point of Wikipedia's notability criteria, or falls down in other ways. For a couple of reasons I don't intend to make detailed answers to all of your points, but to illustrate here are a few points. You say "Good faith has not been assumed by the other editors", but I don't see where or how. Everything that I have seen about this (both on this page and elsewhere) is consistent with the view that everyone thinks you are acting in perfectly good faith, but have sincerely misunderstood how Wikipedia works. You say that "The film features significant involvement by a notable person", and suggest that this means it is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (films). However, there are reasons why that argument is not as conclusive as you appear to think. Firstly, you quote part of a sentence out of context, and omit such details as "one of the most important roles in the making of the film", "and is a major part of his/her career", and "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." In the article you describe Karen Black's role as a "cameo", which scarcely suggests that it is either "one of the most important roles in the making of the film" or "a major part of ... her career". Secondly, Wikipedia:Notability (films) does not say that any film which satisfies that criterion is notable: rather, it says that a film that does not satisfy the notability criteria mentioned earlier in that page may still possibly be notable, and it lists a number of features that can be taken into consideration in assessing such cases. That is a long way short of saying "if a film satisfies any one of the following criteria then it is automatically notable". You say that "this article supplies THREE independent sources", but unfortunately you have not understood what "independent" means in this context. All three of the sources are pages at http://www.chrisinnis.com, and Chris Innis is the director and producer of the film, so the sources are not independent. You mention a couple of other articles on films that you think are less well sourced than this one. Unfortunately, you are perfectly right: among the three million and more articles on English Wikipedia there are many which are unsuitable, and which should be deleted. However, this does not automatically mean that we need to question "the motivation of those who have nominated it for deletion", as you suggest. It is very likely that the nominator has simply not seen those articles: nobody can read all of Wikipedia. You may like to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. You have referred to the need to assume good faith: I suggest that you should assume good faith on the part of the nominator. I have no doubt that you have come to Wikipedia in good faith to write what you thought would be a constructive contribution, and I have every sympathy with the sense of frustration that you no doubt feel when you find the work you have done heading for deletion. However, that does not mean that those who have taken actions you dislike are acting in bad faith, or that people are "ganging up" on you or on the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Response): The film meets notability requirements on more than one level. Not just by the sources, which as you see in my (above) response to Tokyogirl's comment. As I mentioned to Tokyogirl, Dennis Brown and Ckatz did not present the article for deletion until after they had stripped the article down to a stub and removed all of the outside independent sources both from the references column and from external links. That means that they know the article is worthy of keeping, they just needed to present it as if it wasn't. The film meets the notability requirements on multiple levels, not just with Academy Award nominee Karen Black's involvement. The filmmaker is a recent Oscar winner. That is the main person making the film. That is notabilty number one. The actors are all known actors, not just Karen Black. John LaZar is a cult film actor who starred in two films by cult film director Russ Meyer, one which was written by Roger Ebert. He has a large cult following. Mike Myers fashioned his character in Austin Powers on John La Zar and his character "Z-man" from Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. So that meets WP:ENT notability. To say that something needs to be "a major" part of someone's career is a subjective judgement. How do you know if it is a major part of someone's career? To them it might be. The reality is that the requirements for Film Notability for upcoming films does not set the bar at a film having to be a "major" part of someone's career because there is no way to forecast that. Yet "upcoming films" is an important part of Wikipedia and the sources/articles that come out when a film is in production are going to be fewer and less detailed than those that come out after a film comes out. That's why the Wikipedia film guidelines for notability states that the film must have two sources and be past "principal photography". Dennis Brown can strip all of the sources out of the article to try to sneak this into a notability/deletion, but it doesn't get around the fact that it meets notability requirements even without those sources and because it is an 'upcoming' film the bar is not set the same for inclusion as Wikipedia's other film articles. Wikipedia's guidelines state that content is not to be deleted just because it isn't sourced anyway (and again, this WAS sourced and sourced by a requisite three independent sources which were deleted by the person who submitted this). The article does not meet the criteria for deletion anyway. It is not "nonsense", it is not "a hoax". If something is of value, then it is a "keep." - Catpowerzzz (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you have missed the point of much of what I tried to say. I will once again not spend the inordinate amount of time it would take to explain in detail what all your errors and misunderstandings are, but I will just mention one thing. You refer repeatedly to what you call "upcoming" films, and the essential point of what you say about them seems to be that you think these "upcoming" films have a lower standard of notability required than other subjects. (For example, you say "the bar is not set the same for inclusion as Wikipedia's other film articles".) However, this is simply not so. The only place that I know of where there is any mention of notability specifically for films that have not yet been released (which is what I assume you mean by "upcoming") is the section of Wikipedia:Notability (films) entitled Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. Reading that, not only do I see nothing whatsoever that suggests that for "an 'upcoming' film the bar is not set the same for inclusion as Wikipedia's other film articles", but on the contrary, what I see is a careful attempt to make it clear that such films do have the same notability standards as other subjects. There are several things which seem to me to be saying this, for example "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". There we have an explicit statement that such unreleased films are not to be considered notable unless the production "is notable per the notability guidelines": i.e. that it has to satisfy the same notability guidelines as any other Wikipedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per convention for this sort of work at this stage of its life. There is no indication that the film itself is particularly notable, or that it will become so. If it does in the future, we can certainly reconsider, but as of now that is uncertain. From viewing the clip with the producer, she appears uncertain as to where or when the film will appear. Catpowerzzz needs to understand that deletion of the article is not a comment on the quality of the film, but merely recognition that it is not suited for a Wikipedia article. He/she also needs to understand that the other editors involved have been acting in good faith, and that they have been reviewing the material presented in a fair and transparent manner. --Ckatz^chatspy 20:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment. This article does meet the conventions for an "upcoming" film. Ckatz commented that he doesn't know if the "film itself" will be notable. One can't know if ANY "upcoming" film itself will be notable. A notable filmmaker and/or cast member making or starring in a film is enough to qualify for inclusion and to presume the film too will be notable in and of itself. The bar is also set at a different level for sources of information on "upcoming films" because there may be less primary sourced news (i.e. finished film reviews) available, which is to say that upcoming films only need two independent sources confirming that they are in production or post-production, and evidence that the film is past the stage of "principal photography" to be included. Wikipedia guidelines also state that content shouldn't automatically be dismissed or deleted unless there is a reasonable expectation to suspect that the information given by those sources is UNTRUE; You must presume it is true. The general guideline is to presume good faith and be inclusive and not to delete good content. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, no RS references, no indications of notability. propose WP:SNOW. Gaijin42 14:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment: - is the above another comment from Ckatz or an unsigned request? Just saying... - Catpowerzzz (talk)

It is clearly an unsigned post, as even the most basic scan of the article history will confirm. You would be better off trying to address the valid concerns listed above, rather than muckraking. Your claim that editors were "gaming the system" is equally ludicrous. Please avoid spurious claims that serve only to demonstrate a lack of respect for the collaborative process. --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the "spurious" claim fits, then wear it. Or not. Forgive me if I thought it was you or somebody you know, because there is a remote possibility it wasn't somebody you know. In any event, this whole discussion is a ruse. Submitting articles for deletion to harass or vex because a user is "tired" of discussing it (or any other personal reason) is wrong and qualifies that user to be blocked. Academy Award-winning is notable by film notability guidelines. There is no higher level of excellence in the film world. End of story. It may make you mad. I can understand that. If all I got was barnstars, I would be mad about real world awards too. But barnstars are invisible, Academy Awards are not. They are real. They are given only to the top filmmakers. As for the extreme scrutiny the sources have been given, even content that is not sourced or poorly sourced can be (and is) a part of Wikipedia and should only be deleted according to Wikipedia's guidelines if it is untrue, gibberish or a hoax. That is not the case here. The content has been repeatedly deleted as well as the sources, even when the sources were put in the "external links" portion of the article. This user has tried to revise the article and lose words such as "successful" which you might have objected to as "advertising" and no amount of editing was enough to satisfy you or Dennis Brown. That's because you had another goal in mind. Cutting the article down to a stub and then deletion. However the user Dennis Brown might be tripped up by his words on the talk page prior to deletion where he states that his goal was to keep the article and to encourage others to contribute to it. Dennis Brown states, "As for the tags, it was tagged to encourage others to find more references, not to get it deleted. If I wanted to send it to AFD I would have. Once the movie comes out, there is a chance that better references will come along, and the tag is there to tell people they need to be added.". That tells me that he knows the article is worthy of keeping and that he only submitted it later because he didn't want to be reasonable and find a consensus between his side and mine. It seems that the intent of his later request for deletion was merely out of revenge or to end an argument that the user was getting "tired" of. That is not a good reason to submit something for deletion. I think we should take Dennis Brown at what he first stated that he didn't want to "get it deleted" but wanted "to encourage others" to contribute to it. An article has to exist, however, for others to be able to contribute to it at a later date. This just does not meet the level of scrutiny you or your friend Dennis Brown are giving it. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just one last attempt to clarify things for you. I hope this will be more successful than previous attempts. (1) I see no evidence anywhere that the nomination was made in order "to harass or vex". Dennis Brown did not say that he was nominating simply because he was tired. He said that "this is exactly what wp:crystalball is meant for", and that "No reliable sources are talking about this". He also made a remark about being tired of arguing about it, but no reasonable person reading the nomination could think he was saying that the nomination was made purely for that reason. (Incidentally, I reckon that the closing admin for this AfD, by the time he/she gets this far, will have a pretty good idea why Dennis was tired of arguing about it.) (2) The fact that Dennis posted comments before this AfD indicating that he was trying "to encourage others to find more references, not to get it deleted" does not in any way detract from the validity of the AfD nomination. He thought there might be valid sources, and invited others to find some. However, they didn't, and eventually he decided that there probably aren't any, so he went ahead with an AfD after all. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and in fact much better than taking it to AfD right away, without giving a chance for notability to be demonstrated. It does not mean that "he knows the article is worthy of keeping and that he only submitted it later because he didn't want to be reasonable". Saying that an article may be "worthy of keeping", and giving others the opportunity to show that it is, is not at all the same thing as saying that it is "worthy of keeping". Finally, I suggest you look carefully at everything everyone else has said about this, both here, on the article's talk page, on user talk pages, on the discussion at WP:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list that you started as a bit of forum shopping when you saw that this AfD wasn't going the way you wanted. I suggest you ask yourself "Is there anyone at all other than me who has shown that they think there is any merit in the notion that Dennis Brown and others are in a malicious conspiracy to get at me, and this AfD nomination has been made just out of spite?" And if, having asked yourself that, you decide that there is just one person out of step with everyone else, you may like to reconsider your conspiracy theory. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move and redirect to Chris Innis. There's just not enough coverage of this film right now to warrant having its own article, once its released and there is independent reviews it can be undeleted for you.Theworm777 (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Catpowerzzz has now increased the number of "references" in the article from three to 12. However, three are still the same non-indepenendent sources at http://chrisinnis.com as mentioned above, and the other nine are pages that don't even mention "It Must be Nice ". JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Persistent questioning of nominator's motives here is immaterial, and is an attempt to personalize this discussion and alter its focus. That there may be COI concerns in the article's creation and continued linking to non-independent sources appears more relevant. The article's issues are evident to multiple passers-by. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (response) The nominator is the one who started the Afd by saying that he was "tired" of discussing the issue. So he is stating his motives himself, it's not me questioning the motives. They are clear. And under the guidelines for WP:SPEEDYKEEP a nominator cannot submit an article if his motivation is to end an edit war. It's clear that was his motivation. Again, if you look at the talk page of the article he says just a few days before nominating the article that it wasn't his intent. The amount of sources did not change in that time, just his lack of patience. I think there have been some good and some iffy reasoning going on here. What I think would be a good solution is that since the article is relatively new and it is not the type of article that would qualify for speedy deletion, that instead we give the article time to breathe and time for more sources to be added at a later date. There is no rush to get rid of this article, as clearly there is a backlog of other articles with no references at all that have more serious notability or sourcing issues. In fact if you look at the Wikipedia notability project, the backlog goes back as far as 2007. That's a lot of articles. I think the problem here is that these tags are being thrown on every article willy nilly without giving the articles and the editors time to build them. If a tag sits on an article for 4 years, then clearly if someone hasn't proven notability by that point, I would understand an Afd. But to throw an article out when it has been recently created without allowing time for it to build, seems rash. As for the sources, there are several sources for the article which are not primary (the official web page) but which are secondary sources, i.e. media outlets not associated with the production. There are not any articles which the primary "focus" is the film, and that doesn't seem to be the criteria for notablity. I'm sure with a lot of cult films and films that are "upcoming" there might not be enough information for a full article, but an article might make mention of a film. Seems that would be valid. Again, I think the right response would be to keep the article and keep the tag for more sources to be added. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Let me clarify the statement in my nomination. When I said "Tired of arguing about this one.", what I meant was "I'm tired of arguing about this one.". You constantly question people's faith, make negative comments about the other projects they work on, and in general, trying to discuss anything with you is a chore. You have spoken about this article at rescue, on the talk page of the article and here at AFD. Can you find one person who think you are correct in your assessment, and who isn't tired of your rants regarding the article and other people's good faith? Just ONE person? I didn't think so, yet you continue to rant about how everyone else is wrong except you, how everyone is out to get you. Accusing an admin of posting unsigned on this very page, to pad the !vote (when a look at the history would have shown otherwise). This is exactly the kind of constant disruption that Wikipedia does not need. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, you need to understand that the editors involved in this are acting in good faith and per Wikipedia's guidelines. This is not even a "speedy" deletion, as you've described it above; those are not discussed, but simply deleted (if an article fits the requirements). This is a full-on deletion discussion, and the trend is clear based on the comments so far. You're hoping to establish notability, but your efforts to date are in fact supporting the opinion that the film does not have the notability for a stand-alone article. Who knows, perhaps after its release it will go on to receive critical acclaim (or notoriety) from high-level critics, and (perhaps) then begin to warrant an article. At present, however, your sources simply support that it exists which is not sufficient. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dennis Brown is trying to suggest that this is a simple vote matter. It isn't. I haven't been trolling around canvassing for people to get them to chime in, like some people might. The article deletion policy says that deletion is weighed based on the quality of the arguments. Vote stacking is irrelevant. Futhermore, this does not meet the criteria for deletion, pure and simple. It meets mutliple levels of notability. It is also verifiable by the sources given. Wikipedia deletion policies for WP:ATD "alternatives to deletion" states that "if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." This article meets that definition, as it is simply too new to have been put through the deletion process and can and should be improved with time (as it is not a candidate for speedy deletion as it is not a hoax and not vandalism). WP:ATD also states that "other methods of dispute resolution should be used first. Dennis Brown resorted to proposing deletion of an article when he knows there are other solutions. I don't know why the sources are being called "primary" sources when several of them are secondary. WP:GNG about reliable sources states that "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Do you guys not understand "in all forms and media"??? WP:GNG also states that "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." That does not say that secondary sources are a "MANDATORY" test for notability. Again, and I consider an article in a magazine that was published to be a good source. I also consider media interviews with the filmmakers and cast to be good sources. They were clearly conducted by SECONDARY MEDIA that was not owned, operated nor connected to the filmmakers. "Independent of the subject" excludes works "CREATED BY" the subject. An interview is not created by the subject. The subject is a cast member of that interview which is created by a third party. That third party has the ability to edit, to transpose, to publish or not to publish as they see fit, and which is out of control by the subject. The only primary source that is used as a backup to the other interviews is the film's official web page, which is not used as the sole source to establish notability. I think instead of people making bureaucratic comments about why they want this article deleted, they should give a reason why someone who might be interested in what actor John LaZar has been doing lately, or Karen Black or Clu Gulager or Amanda Fuller, why that person can't have access to this information solely based on a technicality and a overreaching judgment on the quality of the sources this early in the article's creation. This is not an indiscriminate article. Just about everybody involved in this film is of note, including two who have been nominated and/or have won Academy Awards. There are only five percent of women who are working film directors in Hollywood. Wikipedia is hardly cluttered with articles about women filmmakers, and clearly not cluttered with articles about films by women who have won Academy Awards, because there are only a few of them. This film also meets the criteria for inclusion for that reason, that it is "rare" and that women filmmakers need to be supported by the Wikipedian community and not gangbanged by overzealous editors. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm pretty sure that your choice of expressions, it is "rare" and that women filmmakers need to be supported by the Wikipedian community and not gangbanged by overzealous editors. is a bit more than over the line, and designed only to inflame, not to persuade. This isn't adding to the discussion, it is only distracting from it. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands, this article does not demonstrate notability, which is a bit surprising given its pedigree. But really, if that's the best sources that are available it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. All the cites are either primary sources, or are citing tangential information that isn't about the film. Perhaps once released it with gather some notability and secondary sources, but right now this isn't deserving of anything more than a mention on the Chris Innis article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coment as to above. The article does demonstrate notability. It is about a recent Academy Award winner. That is not "tangential" information. All of the sites are not "primary" sources. Only one is. Wikipedia does not ban primary sources and does not mandate secondary sources. However there are FOUR sources, one is primary (the official web page), one is an OLD FASHIONED PRINT ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN A UK MAGAZINE and two are media interviews set up by the INTERNATIONAL PRESS ACADEMY. Now don't you guys have a few asteroids to argue about, that are more deserving of your time on Wikipedia? Created anything today? Or are we all out just to destroy and delete? - 01:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catpowerzzz (talk • contribs)

notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The fact that lots of people who are themselves notable gives no notability to this work. This work must be independantly covered. The primary source is fine for sourcing non controversial information, but cannot be used as a source of notability. there is ZERO coverage of this film. Your sources are great - for the topics covered by them. None of your WP:RS sources even mention this film in passing. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are beating a dead horse. He doesn't seem to care about the policies here, he is misquoting them left and right, and spending his time on personal attacks. He obviously has a horse in this race, and doesn't care about consensus, only about keeping the article at all costs. I'm still surprised that more administrative action hasn't happened due to his behavior, and somewhat disappointed. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are beating a dead horse. Because you are wrong. Perhaps you are the one who needs disciplining. Why are you "disappointed" that there is no administrative action when we are merely discussing the situation here? Is that what you are after? Is that your real intention here, to get a rise out of this user to force an administrative action? Besides, since you and Ckatz are both administrators doesn't it border on conflict of interest WP:COI for you to be involved in this discussion at all since you nominated the article and both you and Ckatz were heavily involved in editing it/using your admin powers? The bar is set higher for admins. They are supposed to be reasonable and not bite or attack new articles. They aren't really supposed to be stalking other users. You and Ckatz began deleting and attacking this article within two hours of its creation. TWO HOURS! And this was not a vandalism article or a hoax that was worthy of that kind of "rapid response." This article is too new to be deleted. This is a keeper that just needs to be built up more over time with more references and more content added as it goes. Have a nice weekend up in frigid Vancouver, Ckatz, and down in Lexington at the BBQ pork eating festivals, Dennis! (If you guys ever leave the computer, that is). : ) - Catpowerzzz (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I am not an administrator. Never have been. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that Dennis Brown is an administrator--I don't know where that comes from. Nor can either he nor Ckatz be accused of conflict of interest here--that's a strange claim, given Catpowerzzz's lack of neutrality in sustaining this article. An article need not be vandalism or hoax to be considered for deletion. There is no such thing as 'too new' to be deleted. What's of concern is not only Cat's tone, forum shopping here and here [16] to get a reaction they like, but a persistent misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines, the sort that occurs when a user so badly wants to keep content that they can see nothing else. To that end, every irrelevant rationale possible is tried above, even an inflammatory gender angle: Wikipedia is hardly cluttered with articles about women filmmakers, and clearly not cluttered with articles about films by women who have won Academy Awards, because there are only a few of them. This film also meets the criteria for inclusion for that reason, that it is "rare" and that women filmmakers need to be supported by the Wikipedian community and not gangbanged by overzealous editors is not only off point, but seeks to provoke the community. Yes, this kind of soapboxing may merit a look by administrators. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To anonymous user 99.136.255.180 - I have attempted to work out this disagreement with Dennis Brown (talk) on his talk page. By the way, it doesn't help things to have someone exacerbating this situation with comments or duplicate ANI accusations for this same discussion, while seemingly hiding behind a cloak of anonymity (particularly from an account that was recently created). In any event, it is my hope that Dennis and I (and any others who might be following along) are moving past this disagreement and acknowledging that there was a misunderstanding between two users who were operating in good faith, as Dennis suggested on his talk page. We are "agreeing to disagree" and hopefully moving on. Deletion is always supposed to be the last resort, especially when it is the discussion that has become the issue and not the content of the article. Content before procedure. Another user who works on a lot of film articles has recently made some changes to the page. I believe that is yet another sign that the article is something that can and should be a keep and that it can be improved in the future. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have answered, after twice before asking you to keep in on the ANI page about your conduct, which is the proper venue for discussing the disagreement and your conduct, not here or on my talk page. I keep telling you, this isn't a disagreement between you and I. I'm not the one who filed the ANI grievance, someone else did, and many others besides myself have participated. Your comments to me just have been particularly "noteworthy". Dennis Brown (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is, to put it kindly, a misrepresentation. Having already sought to out me on the AIV page--to which I obliged so other editors would not be tarnished by accusations that I was one of their socks--you continue here to imply that I used an IP account to cloak something devious. As long as you're hopping about unchecked, alternately offering olive branches and making snide implications, I've got to say that this is just plain slimy. JNW (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, To Retired JNW (talk) who I am presuming is now taking credit for his anonymous postings that he posted as 99.136.255.180 (talk): I did not try to "out" you. You chose to post anonymously yourself. I merely suggested that posting anonymously with an IP address gives the appearance that you are a sock puppet of another participant. Sorry, if that is not the case, that's just how it "looks." I think if you are going to jump in on discussions with such toxic accusations and ANI nominations, your argument would have had more weight had you been a registered user and not cloaked behind recently "retired" accounts and/or anonymous IP addresses. You mention on your retired user page that you contribute anonymously only "when vandalism" occurs. This is not vandalism. For your arguments to have any credibility, you need to either "un-retire" yourself or step away from the platform. This game appears to be over. Please do not try to "reignite" the debate with more fuel, thank you. Dennis Brown and I seem to be moving on. I hope you can do the same. Either that, or please go back into "retirement." - Catpowerzzz (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources indicate it may be notable some day -- perhaps after release and independent press coverage. But for not it should be deleted. Nobody Ent 14:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Innis, for now. The article could easily be restored later, if and when better sources become available. In the meantime, it's reasonable to think this might be a search term. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacs the sources to demonstrate notability. Mt king ^(edits) 08:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the very well articulated reasons above on the reasons of notability. A merge/redirect would be inappropriate as it might encourage malicious editing of the chosen article doktorb _words^deeds 17:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete For now, but of course if we can have notability expressed in verifiable 3rd-party sources then by all means keep. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a secondary reliable source about it can be pointed out here and now. I haven't read all of the above, but I looked at most of the refs and did my own Google searching, and I haven't found any sources about this movie besides chrisinnis.com (primary) and some twitter and facebook stuff (not RSs). Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is exactly what WP:CRYSTAL is meant for. Ish dar ian 00:26, 6 March 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. Sandstein 21:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Forsyth[edit]

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

A prod was placed on this article on 17 February. Another editor removed it (which I did not notice until just now) on 24 February. A third editor re-added the prod on 25 February (which they should not have done per the Prod rules).On 25 February, after the original prod had expired (which I would not have done if I had checked the history), I decided that the prod was in order, though rather than delete I redirected the article to Alberta general election, 2012#Northern Alberta, where the person is listed as a candidate. A fourth editor undid the redirect today. In any event, this article is now at AfD, and I agree that it should be deleted: the person is an elected official, but not at a high enough level to meet WP:POLITICIAN. There are no sources which indicate anything special about this person beyond their position on a local council to merit general notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Hwy43 (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Generally acceptable standards. Hwy43 (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Being a rural town councillor is not notability. If he wins, then we can add him. Bkissin (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even city councillors get articles. 117Avenue (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ~~information has been added about awards in the BC Winter Games;~~ however, as far as I can tell, those aren't sufficient to meet WP:ATHLETE, though I admit to not being an expert on athlete notability. If I can figure out how, I'll add this to the sports-related afd list so that maybe someone with an interest there can comment; if regulars who does specialize in WP:ATHLETE questions opine that these awards are sufficient...though I think we need some clear indication that the award winner is the same Alan Forsyth as the councilor. Lastly, though, Yaloe should note that the Council experience doesn't in any way contribute to notability, per WP:POLITICIAN. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fix: sorry, it wasn't the BC Winter Games, it was some similarly named "Northern BC Winter Games", which is a chess festival, and given the hosting site there's no indication that it's anywhere near notable enough to qualify for WP:ATHLETE. The other event is equally non-notable (and also unsourced). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Northern BC Winter Games" is not "a chess festival" google search turned up website: http://www.bcgames.org/nbcwgs/ as it's top result. You can see the medal standings by region here: http://www.bcgames.net/results/results_n.aspx I note that Fraser Ft. George alone won 77 medals. This is a major sports event in B.C. Yaloe (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". met Yaloe (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll accept the Alberta government coverage as reliable, but the coverage is not significant (Forsyth is just listed as one of over 50 winners, with no detailed info). The other site is only borderline reliable, and it covers this Forsyth (note that there are 2 Forsyth's discussed there) in only a single sentence ~~and a 5th place entry on the results table~~. So if you have some other sources, you'll need to provide them.Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the page it says "top apprentice". each trade is a seperate category. "The Alberta Apprenticeship and Industry Training Board recognizes top apprentices in each trade. Recipients of these awards earned top marks and received exceptional employer recommendations. Top apprentices are invited to the annual board awards where we recognize their achievements and present them with their awards." So electricians across the province compete against other electrician's and each year have a chance to win the top spot in their trade (comparing apples to apples). The award only considers the marks in the final (and most challenging) year. Yaloe (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misread the results table. The table is listed in order of chess rating on tournement entry. The totals are list in the "TOT" column on the right with 4 wins each for the top 3 finishers. Alan Forsyth's under 1500 rating put him alone with 4 pt.s in that category thus he got the Gold. the text of the article clearly states this : "The Open class winner was Bob (Pincher) Chapman of Smithers with 4/5. He filched the gold medal from Jason Danner (another local) by virtue of a superior tie-break after Alan Forsyth's shocking last round upset of Danner. Forsyth's victory capped an excellent 4/5 tally and secured him the gold medal in the Under-1500 category." You can also search the results http://www.bcgames.net/results/results_n.aspx by selecting SMITHERS2002 then checking RESULTS+INDIVIDUAL+FINAL then selecting sports CHESS event SENIOR B 0-1499 and clicking SUBMIT.

Yes, I did misread; sorry. I've fixed it back to being a gold medal. Note that it really doesn't matter, because winning a local sports award in what appears to be a fairly small competition is not in any way an indication of notability. Nor is receiving a "Top Apprenticeship" award from a state government. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is not a mere local candidate, nor just a town councilor, he has served in civic politics in two different provinces. As a councilor in BC he even influenced Provincial Government policy. I saw the BC Minister of Forests listen carefully to his recommendations regarding the pine beetle epidemic and adopt many of them shortly after. It is a little challenging coming up citations for this stuff given that a lot of his service has been too early to have an internet trail, but I am doing what I can and adding content slowly. Anyway, I cast my vote for notability, and further I think if the criteria is even close it should be approved. There is a general election coming up very soon in Alberta and factual information is in the spirit of Wikipedia. Gussy Finknottle (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)— Gussy Finknottle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Municipal councillors in places the size of High Level or New Hazelton are not notable; the only cities in Canada where a city councillor can legitimately claim notability just for being a city councillor are Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa (i.e. the major metropolitan cities.) Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN.Moxy (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and userify/incubate Certainly it is true that candidates are not considered notable (at this level), and the significant coverage we need has not been found.

In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate

Rich Farmbrough, 10:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I should clarify that as nom I definitely agree with leaving behind a redirect to the election page; that, in fact, was what I tried to do before but had it reverted, leaving AfD as a necessary procedural hoop. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with leaving behind a redirect. However, if Alberta general election, 2012#Northern Alberta is the targeted redirect, note that adding content from the bio article to the target article is not appropriate given the structure of the target article. If redirected, what are the implications on the active wikilinks on other articles like High Level, Alberta? Unwikify or no harm leaving a wikilink to the redirect? Hwy43 (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wildrose Party candidates in the 2012 Alberta general election. Or what ever is deemed proper to be called until he wins his district.--Þadius (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to be doing party candidate lists? As far as I know, Ontario is the only province that does. 117Avenue (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any provincial or federal election is certainly allowed to have such lists if desired — whether anybody actually gets around to doing them or not is a different question, driven mainly by the fact that the editors who happen to be most insistent that we actually need such things in the first place are mostly based in Ontario, but there's no formal policy or practice that precludes their creation elsewhere. (For what it's worth, I don't particularly think we need them in Ontario or federally either, since if all the unsourced-BLP and formatting cleanup that the backlog requires were to be properly dealt with, then they wouldn't actually provide any useful information anymore that couldn't already be gleaned from the election articles themselves — seriously, just go ahead and try to convince me that Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election is actually useful in its current format, or that it can be made any more useful than it is without violating our WP:BLP1E and/or WP:RS rules — but cleaning them all up and/or sending them trashward is more work than I'm prepared to take on by myself.) Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. The article can certainly be recreated if he wins, but unelected candidates in provincial elections are not entitled to use Wikipedia to help promote their candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN, WP:SPAM, 117Avenue, and Bearcat (no relation). Even if he were elected, which is unlikely, he won't be notable. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, anybody who's elected to a state or provincial legislature is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia; there are no exceptions. And YMVV, I suppose, but I'm not particularly willing at this point to definitively bet one way or the other on the electoral prospects of a Wildrose candidate Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Tylko (talk) 21:08, 8 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique McCusker[edit]

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

Non-notable women's cricketer. Hasn't played a major women's cricket match, so fails WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. The Asian Twenty20 Championship she played in is a minor tourament, whose matches don't hold Women's Twenty20 International status (Hong Kong played Bhutan, China and Singapore, so hardly surprising). Google search also brings up hardly any reliable sources. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: has not played in a significant domestic or international cricket match, thus doesn't meet WP:CRIN. Although she has represented Hong Kong at international level, it is not the top level of amateur sport, as Hong Kong do not play at the top level of international women's cricket, pretty much all of which is amateur. Harrias ^talk 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above. Hasn't played at a high enough level to meet WP:CRIN and doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, so doesn't meet WP:GNG either. Jenks24 (talk) 20:16, 1 March 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) B music ian 03:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States[edit]

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

Very poorly sourced. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Paolo Napolitano 09:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The information is useful. Many of the items listed are pretty well known to be true; leave the tag up for a year and see if the references improve. Warren Dew (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - There is a citation to a single book on ancestors of American presidents in the article. I've no doubt that the genealogy and ancestry of American presidents is a subject that has been published somewhere. However, the one key citation in this article is a user-created page on the Geni website, which is probably the source of the other miscellaneous information about cousins and descendants. If the article is about ancestors, the poorly sourced, miscellaneous information should be cut out. Sionk (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. This informatoin is interesting and if you look at the source at your local library you will find that he did an amazing amount of research. I have used this article frequently and hard drives are cheap. Stidmatt (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think that there can be serious doubt that the topic is notable in the sense that people have been interested enough in it over the years to devote a great deal of time to researching individual relationships and that the information can appropriately be drawn together into a single article. And with respect to Sionk, I am not convinced that there are grounds for narrowing it to ancestry - a close relationship by marriage might be much more significant than a blood relationship. The weakness in sourcing is a major defect but I would not wish to delete for this reason unless there were serious doubts that reliable sources exist. Whilst I am struck as an outsider as to how very distant and inconsequential most of these relationships are, and that a great many native born US citizens will be able to claim similar relationships with former presidents, the British royal family, and with me for all I know, those are not grounds for deletion. --AJHingston (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep - As as stand-alone list (which this article essentially is), it seems to work. It is of encylcopedic value and has a solid enough definition to keep it from becoming too broad. The concept of grouping presidents by genealogical relationship has been done (as the references attest to); the article thus adheres to WP:LISTN and WP:SALAT. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is very interesting and useful information. A President of the United States is of course interesting, and it is always interesting to know how famous people may be related to eachother. While sixth cousins three times removed and so on perhaps is more of a curious fact, father-son relationships and close in-laws are really noteworthy. Pinut (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the refs cited in the article, I have seen numerous other articles stating the ancestral relationships between US Presidents. Edison (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Very poorly sourced" is a terrible rationale for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable content, regardless of any need for improvement. This goes on the nom's permanent record.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As people have said above, the article contains very useful informations. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:36, 29 February 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. apparent consensus. 3 clear deltes are enough to make it unnecessary to relist. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hurst[edit]

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

A local news anchor with no apparent claim to notability outside the two areas where he has anchored. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete On paper, an anchor who has worked in two major markets (NYC and Houston) would be an easy keep. But I'm not finding any sources on the specific awards he's won. There may be an article here, but this isn't it. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 20:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any independent sourcing covering the subject. Not seeing anything to backup the "award-winning" bit, either, unless he is not a prominent TV news anchor and is, in fact, an outstanding Monitronics manager. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 7 March 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. As per argument raised below, WP:PROF is not met -- Samir 05:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Asgharzadeh[edit]

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

I think this page does not meet the criteria of notability (WP:ACADEMIC) and also the page is not a place for propaganda and advertising : WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:SOAPBOX. Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written, not notable, looks like an advertisement. Rory ^{Come for talkies} 06:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I forget to mention that the Reliable Sources of this article are : ratemyprofessors.com , 8 times from a blog , five other blogs and personal websites and 16 times Google searching the words out of his books ! The article does not have a single source !!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy delete. Doesn't even say why the person should be considered notable. FurrySings (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Alireza Asgharzadeh is merely an assistant researcher at York University [17]. He is by no means a notable academic. The article clearly fails WP:Academic and has been written by someone who is probably connected to Asgharzadeh, and so it reads like an advertisement for Asgharzadeh.Kurdo777 (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :Kurdo777 must prove his claim about existing relation between creator of this article and Alireza Asgharzade with reliable source otherwise it will be considered as a personal attack WP:NPA:Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense and Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence: Serious accusations require serious evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.248.64 (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. Kurdo777's remark was not a personal attack and you should not take it that way. All Kurdo777 said was "probably". there's no "outing", no accusation of untoward behavior. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not agree with you about the sources, and it is yourself opinion.))) Maziar Ashrafian Bonab, Eli Lancman, Ruth Linn, Myriam Yardeni and other article about person have same condition. There are enough sources for article.))) Please attantion to Talk:Alireza Asgharzadeh. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :If you think an article with same situation deserves AfD , does it means you have to build a same article with that problem ? Or the correct thing is to nominate them for AfD? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Wikipedia have same rules for all article. WP:FIVE WP:NPOV.))) I add new sources to article, and i hope that problem will solve. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP has identical standards for every article. Nevertheless, there are almost 4 million articles and many of those don't adhere to guidelines and policies, so the argument that other similar articles exist, is an argument better avoided at AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With adding new references and deleting blogs, this article does not fullfil the required criteria for deletion nomination anymore.Because no good faith was implied in an effort to improve the article by nominator ,I am also concerned about any political agenda that may have inspired the nomination of this article for deletion. RfD is not to be used as part of a political squabble - otherwise, every biographical article that has any political significance would continuously be up for deletion. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the added sources, obviously does not meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Accusations of political bias are obviously out of line here, please assume good faith.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaume2303 (talk • contribs)

Comment Please attention to WP:ACADEMIC.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:PROF is the same as WP:ACADEMIC, both redirect to WP:Notability (academics). If you think this person meets that guideline, please tell us which criteria and why and provide references to back up that claim. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on commenting According to WP:Notability (academics): For people who have made substantial impact outside academia but in their academic capacity, the appropriate criteria for that sort of notability apply as an alternative—as for a person notable for popular writing in her subject.Alireza Asgharzadeh is more famous for his writings about Iranian Azerbaijanis's issues than his academic capacity.Because the lack of reliable sources in these issues, Asgharzade's works in these subjects are very important.His views has cited in other authors' works.e.g:Nader Entessar in Kurdish politics in the Middle East has quoted his views about racism in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.248.64 (talk) 15:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "notability" in the Wikipedia sense has nothing to do with "good", "bad", "important", "worthwhile", etc. What we need is reliable sources showing that this person has generated enough interest to be notable, according either one of our guidelines (be it WP:PROF or WP:GNG). One citation in one book is absolutely not enough. If his work is very important, it should not be too difficult to find proof of that, because other academics will have said so and cited it. Show us these sources and we can rapidly close this discussion as a "keep". In the absence of solid evidence for such recognition, however, we will in the end have to conclude that the inclusion guidelines are not met. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has a body of academic work published in books and a number of credible academic publications. werldwayd (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. And note that "he has written stuff" is not one of the WP:PROF criteria. We need evidence that what he has written has made a significant impact. One paper with 67 citations in Google scholar and the rest at best in the low double digits is not enough to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. In addition, he is not mentioned in newspapers or magazines. Tradedia (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:33, 29 February 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 per WP:CSD#G12. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{Talk to me} 15:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Seven Adventure[edit]

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

Article describing an unknown, unreferenced book Tainter (talk) 02:59, 26 February 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 February 26. Snotbot t • c » 05:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged article for copyvio. The entire plot synopsis was copied word for word from this page: [18]. I'm not yet sure about notability, but I do know that copyvios are not acceptable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Handshakes[edit]

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

This is less an article and more an essay. Also pure original research. Night Ranger (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability whatsoever: WP:N and purely unencyclopedic material.
Delete. While it is an interesting idea for a research paper, the article is purely original research and is not encyclopedically written. There's no reliable sources to back up any of the claims in the article and anything that would be considered encyclopedic is already covered at secret handshake and handshake.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl79. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, Bazj (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As people have said above, it's purely original research. PatrickAnimi (talk) 14:09, 27 February 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Lewis[edit]

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

Resume-like page previously deleted by my prod has been recreated. Lewis is an assistant professor of little note. His 'h'-index is around 8, highest-cited paper (not 1st author) is 28. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the reflist numbered in reverse order? Is this a cut-and-paste from elsewhere, and is it a copyvio? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of passing WP:PROF. —Ruud 03:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiography by the creator's own admission. No MUSIC notability (also by the creator's own admission). I don't see any WP:PROF notability in article or in google scholar, google news, google search, etc. Tradedia (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this even real? Inventor, musician, sportsman, warrior... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete after moving to author's userpage. Fails WP:PROF and is pure autobiography. What's with these kind of articles these days? - UtherSRG (talk) 10:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:32, 29 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R$VP Clothing[edit]

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

Presently, this company does not appear to have attracted the notice of independent publishers. A Google search for this company with the "R$VP" orthography reveals Wikipedia hits only. Searches for "RSVP Clothing" returned web pages that could not be definitively linked to this company. (Contested PROD). NTox · talk 05:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see the Refimprove tag was removed as well as contesting the Prod. As it stands, refimprove was generous as the only ref is to the company's own site. I'm not seeing any searchable refs available either. This could go under a WP:CSD A7? or perhaps a G11? AllyD (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chiming in. Despite everything, I don't think this article is eligible for speedy deletion under the narrow CSD criteria. NTox · talk 22:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also had a quick Google around but could't find ANYTHING. Smart business move to have a name that can't be Googled - every time I try, even with quotes, it keeps searching "R VP" rather than "R$VP"... even so, you'd think there ought to be at least something coming up... Mabalu (talk) 10:59, 28 February 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. There's no consensus for either keeping or deleting all of these en masse. Individual nominations, perhaps a few at a time, appear advisable to me. Sandstein 21:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawgiver (Judge Dredd)[edit]

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

This is a mass nomination of Judge Dredd-related articles, all of which are contested PRODs. User:Polisher of Cobwebs de-PROD-ed them, saying "May not be independently notable, but could make a perfectly good redirect. Start an AfD if you really think it should be deleted entirely"...so here we are. None of these have any secondary sources to establish notability. They all consist of 95% (or more) plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT) and just cite the comics themselves (as references for plot points). All are fictional elements of a fictional universe without enough real-world content or significance to stand alone. There is currently a related AfD going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Block (Judge Dredd). I have no objection to these titles existing as redirects to the parent topic (Judge Dredd), but the content is just 2 dozen articles' worth of plot summary (in one form or another) and the topics aren't suitable for stand-alone articles. And before anyone cries "merge", there's maybe 2 sentences' worth of reliably-sourced, real-world info among the whole lot, so there's nothing worth merging. The Judge Dredd article already contains perfectly good summations of most of the comic universe's elements and plot points, and several of these articles have been marked with some form of notability or plot tag for some time. Frankly I'm surprised none of these have been brought to the chopping block before, as it seems everything but Dredd's badge has somehow been given its own article. The rest of the articles are as follows: IllaZilla (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mega-City One, as a major and quite well-known element of the Dredd universe, may in fact be independently notable, as I observed when I removed the prod. It does not seem like an especially good idea to tie its fate to those of many other Dredd articles, which I agree are about topics that are unlikely to be notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, it's the only article with a secondary source cited, but it appears to just be a mention on some list (the source is paywalled). The mention of the list is the only sentence of real-world coverage in the entire article, and a concise overview of the city is already given at Judge Dredd#Dredd's world. Nothing worth keeping here, though of course no prejudice is intended against anyone taking a crack at writing a new article with secondary sources and real-world coverage. But that would pretty much entail starting from scratch anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you don't sound absolutely sure. If you aren't altogether sure, why nominate the article for deletion? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think it should be deleted. Like I said, it's already concisely covered at Judge Dredd#Dredd's world. Without any additional real-world coverage or secondary sources, there's nothing to justify a stand-alone article. 54K of nothing but plot description isn't worth keeping. Of that I'm sure. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Mega-City One is independently notable, which is not completely implausible, then it would deserve a more detailed article of its own. Have you even looked for sources? They could be used to create a worthwhile article, together with some of the material already in the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did a cursory search of Google News and Google Books and didn't come up with anything promising. What would be needed to show independent notability is secondary sources giving this fictitious city significant coverage, such as discussing its depiction and impact. I don't see anything like that. I also don't see any real-world content via primary sources, such as the writer discussing how he came up with the concept of the "mega city" and turned it into the setting of his stories, or the artist discussing how he chose to depict it. To write a decent article you'd need to find this kind of material, and the existing 54K of plot description would have to be whittled down to a few concise paragraphs or short sections. You can go on saying "it's probably notable" all you want, but that doesn't hold water unless secondary sources actually exist to show notability. I'm skeptical that they do, and haven't found any, but feel free to prove me wrong. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was probably notable, I said it was possibly notable - not at all the same thing. You seem like a fairly competent researcher of pop-culture subjects so I will take your word for it that there's no good evidence of notability, and thus withdraw my objection to including Mega-City One in this mass deletion effort. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The Judge Dredd universe is a rich one and has spawned numerous comic strips, games, movies, books &c. There is at least one encyclopedia devoted to this: A-Z of Judge Dredd: The Complete Encyclopedia from Aaron Aardvark to Zachary Zziiz and the topic gets good coverage in other encyclopedia such as Encyclopedia of Comic Books and Graphic Novels and International Companion Encyclopedia of Children's Literature. Peremptory deletion en masse is therefore inappropriate when our editing policy is to take better care of our material. Warden (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even with secondary works devoted to Judge Dredd or comics in general, it is highly doubtful that significant coverage is given to every element within the Judge Dredd universe such that each element—including fictitious statues and political positions—merits a stand-alone article. You cannot honestly tell me that every single one of these topics meets our inclusion criteria. I am reminded of when there used to be separate articles for every marine, vehicle, and gun from Aliens: Despite the existence of the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual, all of these separate articles did not survive AfD. Yes, the Judge Dredd universe in general has probably received good coverage over the years, but that doesn't mean every element from the universe merits a stand-alone article. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If some particular element seems too thin or slight then our editing policy would be to merge into some higher level article. It seems apparent that you don't know much about the topic and have just gone on this spree on a dare, without following WP:BEFORE. Your own creations are crappy articles like Pitchfork (band) which don't have any sources rather than the 40 sources which Mega-City One has. Please see The Mote and the Beam. Warden (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a load. As I've mentioned elsewhere here, I did conduct a cursory search for sources. I do also have some knowledge of the topic, and no one "dared" me to nominate these articles: I came across them some time ago after tidying up the plot summary of Judge Dredd (film), and with the recent nomination of City Block (Judge Dredd) for deletion (not by me) it seemed prudent to place scrutiny on these other topics as well. Trying to insult me by bringing up an article I worked on 5½ years ago (but did not create, contrary to your assertion) does nothing to address the problems with these articles. Please see WP:OTHERCRAP. I'm not going to dignify such petulance with examples, but do look at anything I've recently created, or the articles I've helped bring up to GA or FA, before you attempt to undermine my credibility by insulting my earliest contributions. WP:PRESERVE advises retaining appropriate content; 2 dozen articles' worth of plot summation is not appropriate content. Yes Mega-City One has 47 citations...and 46 of them are just citations to the comics themselves, to verify plot points. The higher-level articles is Judge Dredd, which already contains a succinct description of the comics' fictional elements and settings, so there's nothing worth merging. There is no use in preserving dozens of pages' worth of in-depth plot recaps. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit Warden, you are sprinkling batshit-crazy in with otherwise reasonable arguments. I don't know if IllaZilla hit a nerve or something, but there is no reason to be such an incredible dick, it just invalidates any sense you were trying to make. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all although this mass deletion makes it a little hard to be thorough. I will keep trying to look for references while this AfD is open, but I am not having luck so far. Mega City One seems to pull up a lot of hits, but most are only coincidental ("mega-city, one") or simple name-checks. No prejudice towards creating redirects. If any/all somehow survive this AfD, I strongly recommend renaming all articles disambiguated with parenthesis from (comics) to (Judge Dredd) for consistency (several are already) and clarity. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all WP is inconsistent over its standards for fictional articles. Redwall and Mortal Engines have had their many articles deleted except for one lead, yet anything from DC comics is seemingly inviolable. Oddly those two, and also Dredd, are UK rather than US. If there is some great policy edict to appear from the heights of Mount Jimbo that we either do or do not do fiction, then that's fine by me. However current practice is far too much about the tastes of individual fanbois with time to kill at AfD, not about any notion of an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As "inconsistent" as you may find WP's standards relating to fiction, I find it incredible to believe that you could look over all these articles and honestly say that every one of them passes the most basic of WP's fiction-related policies (WP:NOT#PLOT) or the lowest bar of notability (significant coverage in reliable third-party sources). There's a stub article about a fictional statue within a fictional city within a fictional world, for pete's sake. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fictional statue you refer to is a parody of the Statue of Liberty, a rather well-known statue. It has also been part of the Dredd universe for 35 years, pretty much as long as Dredd himself. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Unless the statue has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it doesn't merit a stand-alone article. There's been a statue of Jebediah Springfield in the middle of town since the very beginning of The Simpsons, but that doesn't mean the statue merits its own article. This argument doesn't address any of the reasons the article was brought to AfD. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all (to allow salvaging material in hindsight) or weak delete (to prevent edit wars over the redirects). Judge Dredd#Dredd's world really does seem to summarize the main points of the fictional world sufficiently, so I agree with the nom that no merger is necessary. The main article section serves also as a good way to develop the topic further with real-world information. From a cursory glance, however, the AfDed articles are exactly what wikipedia frowns upon, i.e. excessive fictional detail. We can just as well lose them completely. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"summarize the main points of the fictional world sufficiently,"

Can you please point me to WP:SUFFICIENT?

We do not have a policy of, "That's enough, now stop". If someone wants to write an article on Dredd's boots through 30 years of a comic, then that's up to them. I would be entirely unsurprised to find that we already have one on Batman's utility belt. There are issues with all the other policies about whether an article is appropriate and competent, even WP:UNDUE about balance within an article, but none of these are based on "We don't need an article on that topic, we have enough already". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Sufficient" refers to the amount of description that should not be exceeded without providing more real-world information, as per WP:NOT#PLOT. With 0% real-world info about the fictional JD world, eight paragraphs of fictional detail are pretty sufficient in my eyes. Compare this to A Song of Ice and Fire#World building and A Song of Ice and Fire#Themes (what I am working on) with currently 27(!!!) paragraphs of 90% real-world information of the fictional world and 10% fictional details yet from third-party sources. Do that with the JD world, and I don't mind seeing one World of Judge Dredd article full of plot. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your point? A Song of Ice and Fire is large, and has many references. Yet if we look at that in detail, it's full of snippets like a photo of Hadrian's Wall and the quite explicit caption "The Wall in the Ice and Fire series was inspired by Hadrian's Wall in the North of England." - which is sheer WP:OR. The only cite for that section is from an interview with George Martin (which some see as reason to delete anyway, being a primary source (although I don't agree)), and that interview merely states, "I like the Wall. So far as I know, it's unique in fantasy." and no more - certainly nothing about Hadrian's Wall.

So are long articles about in-universe detail acceptable provided that they're based on verbose WP:OR, but if they're tersely based on the primary source of the text, the whole article ought to be deleted? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's 0% OR in the ASOIAF article, and the ref for Hadrian's Wall is right beside the image in the prose (ref #49, not just ref #59). As for your last question, a fictional-element article full of OR should be deleted on WP:OR grounds, and a fictional-element article full of primary sources should either be s-merged or deleted on WP:WEIGHT/WP:SIZE grounds. I'd rather not derail this AfD with WP:OTHERSTUFF, so please contact me on my talk page if you'd like to discuss the ASOIAF article further. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some, delete some: I think that some of these articles have more value that others (for example, City Block does not really add anything to Mega-City One, but the latter article could be improved and would be worth keeping). In general though, I think we all know what would happen if we tried to delete the article on Batman's utility belt on grounds of notability -- there is a double standard here, so my view is keep for the reason given above by Andy Dingley.Richard75 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone fancy an AfD of Goldmember / Johan van der Smut? Pure unreferenced in-universe coverage. Yet it's Hollywood and part of the Beyoncé Knowles and Britney Spears projects, so it's only surprising it hasn't been nominated as a GA yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If what these articles are lacking is secondary sources and some rewriting, then 7 days is not much time to do it in. Its enough time for one article, but given that there is a whole list of them here I propose a longer deadline. Richard75 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articles don't have to be rewritten within the 7-day AfD period, but if it could at least be shown that significant secondary source coverage exists for some of the topics, then those topics could be kept. I didn't have any luck in a cursory search, but anyone with access to better sources is welcome to demonstrate significant coverage for any of these individual topics, and make a case for keeping based on that. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
- I'm all for including articles that can provide a reader a grounding on elements in works of fiction that are mentioned in other articles - multiple other articles. It allows for brevity in those other articles since the same element doesn't have to be covered again and again. However, if an element is of questionable notability or only has in-story references, the article on it should be succinct not dot presented as an in-depth in-story history or RPG supplement. A lot of side articles on works of fiction lose sight of that. And a lot of those articles need to be addressed.
- I'm not sure the list articles need to be deleted. As per above, the off-load repetitive detail from other articles. That said, the entries in the lists should be things that actually need a bit of explanation and crop up in more than one article. "Boot knife" or "Total War" seem unneeded in the lists.
- I'd also say merging into list articles with the above in mind is preferable to just deleting.
- J Greb (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with your comments. It is difficult to comprehend the Dredd universe without a clear notion of what a City Block is, or just how big Mega-City One is intended to be. The trouble is that this AfD (and WP in general) has no means to address your issue of, "a lot of those articles need to be addressed.". Bulk deletion of every related article is a crude substitute that even Dredd might consider heavy-handed. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a succinct description of the major elements of the Judge Dredd stories, found at Judge Dredd#Dredd's world. It explains what Mega-City One is, what City Blocks are, what the other major cities are, etc. etc. We don't need multiple articles to rehash the same material at varying levels of detail, especially if they contain little to no real-world information (inspiration, creative process, artistic design, impact, etc.) and just lay out the comics' stories in-depth. The trouble with "off-loading repetitive detail" to list articles is that they just become dumping grounds for plot-only rehashes. This has been the case with every "list of <insert fictional topic>" article I've encountered. The prevailing attitude seems to be "make a list article to keep the fanboys distracted, and we'll keep the real articles quality". The articles bear this out: There isn't a single sentence of real-world, encyclopedic information in either List of organizations in Judge Dredd or List of technology in Judge Dredd. Nothing about the inspiration, reception, or significance of any of the items listed; It's all just "This thing appears in this comic and does this. This thing appears in that comic and does that." This kind of article is precisely why WP:PLOT and WP:N exist.

Andy, the catch 22 of a mass nomination like this is that all of the articles have the same root problems, so nominating and discussing each individually would be tedious and a waste of everyone's time. Yet as soon as anyone sees a list this long the knee-jerk reaction is something like "you can't delete every article on this topic!" Nevermind that the articles and topics all have the same basic problems (summary-only descriptions, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources) and that there are 171 articles on Judge Dredd (meaning that even if these 28 or so were deleted we'd still have 144 articles about Judge Dredd, 111 of which—by my count—would be about the characters, locations, major storylines, and major elements of the universe). Given the level of coverage already given on WP to the franchise and its major stories and elements, I don't find deleting the comparative handful of articles that most glaringly fail our basic inclusion criteria to be "heavy-handed" or "a crude substitute" for addressing their problems. If insufficient secondary source coverage doesn't exist, that's something no amount of editing can fix. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reject AfD out of hand and ask for some assurance from the nominator that each article has been individually examined to see if it does meet each of the nomination criterion. Otherwise its a case of "I want to delete articles [1 through 100] on the basis that some are plot summary, others unsourced, and various miscellaneous reasons including any or all of the ones listed in deletion policy." Additionally, these articles are dissimilar. Some are locations, some are species, etc. These need to be considered separately. I think there is a much stronger consensus to redirecting or keeping articles that are fixable (which makes this a case for editorial review, not AfD). -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you cannot reject AfDs out of hand. I assure you I looked over each article individually and performed a cursory search for secondary sources as described in WP:BEFORE. I've been actively editing for almost 6 years and have been involved in many AfDs...this ain't my first rodeo. The articles are not dissimilar: They are all about aspects of the same fictional universe and all suffer from the same problems (summary-only descriptions, no evidence of significant secondary source coverage). Simply because they deal with different aspects of the fictional universe does not mean they each need to be considered separately. Most of these are not fixable: As noted above, a lack of significant third-party source coverage is not something that can be fixed through editing. Either the secondary sources exist from which to build a stand-alone article, or they don't. I searched for some and came up empty, and no one has proffered any that offer significant coverage to these individual topics. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong by demonstrating that any of these topics have received significant third-party source coverage such that they should stand alone, but rejecting the entire AfD out of hand does nothing to address the very real and completely valid reasons why these articles were nominated. Why does everyone assume I just pulled this AfD out of my ass? --IllaZilla (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the fine tuning to other editors, but I'll like to point out that 'reject AfD out of hand' is possible and I can cite several cases of same. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the majority of them I think that Mega-City One should be kept, it seems to be the most signifigant. I think Cursed Earth could be kept, but only if it is improved in the near-future. - Another n00b (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close and renom as not quite so big a group nom - It's clear from the discussion above that more than a few of these should be in separate discussions. If consensus is truly there to delete them all, then it shouldn't matter if it's one discussion or 12 or 50. Right? - jc37 20:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted several times above, the articles all have the same root problems (summary-only descriptions and no evidence of significant secondary source coverage to meet our inclusion criteria). Having 28 separate discussions would not address these issues any better than a single discussion does, and that many separate discussions would be a big fat waste of time. Can you demonstrate that any of these articles can be fixed to resolve these 2 fundamental problems? If so, then those articles can be reconsidered. If not, there is no point to discussing each individually. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is almost impossible to give any reasonable verdict on so many AfDs where some could be deleted (although, even if it probably isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, the information is correct and useful, so I'd like to see it transwikied somewhere so it isn't lost - at Wikia there is a wiki for British comics, UK comics and Judge Dredd, the last one is the most obvious home but I am unsure how active it is, equally 2000AD are starting their own wiki but I'm not sure what the score would be moving the material there) but some are in line with guidelines (the lists) or a good idea (some of the location ones act as a wrapper for a number of stories, which is along the same line as using lists to contain material that wouldn't support its own article). So, for example Under City (Judge Dredd) is a useful wrapper for a group of stories, some with a similar theme, as can be seen by the fact that they'll be featured in a upcoming tpb (for which I'm sure there will be reviews) and can be sourced through the "A-Z of Judge Dredd" for example, as well as the Mongoose sourcebooks perhaps (and presumably the "City of Dredd" books which are more up to date and comprehensive). tl;dr - some need deleting, some need work, some need merging, those that are deleted or merged need transwiking, and I, for one, can't possibly give a blanket verdict on such a long and varied list. Sorry. (Emperor (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
"Correct and useful" is irrelevant if the material does not meet our inclusion criteria (evidence of significant secondary source coverage). Your hope that some of these topics may be covered in secondary sources at some unknowable point in the future is immaterial; If significant secondary source coverage does not currently exist, then the topics do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Transwiki-ing to Wikia is not WP's business, nor the business of AfD. Any Judge Dredd-ophile is welcome to copy the content to whatever other Wiki they want at any time...whether the content might be interesting to people in other corners of the internet other than Wikipedia is not a deciding factor in whether the content is kept on Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have merged a number of articles into Mega-City One and Judge (2000 AD), as their subjects did not seem to be notable enough to warrant them having articles all to themselves, but were highly relevant to those two articles. I do not accept the bold claim in the nomination that "before anyone cries "merge", there's maybe 2 sentences' worth of reliably-sourced, real-world info among the whole lot, so there's nothing worth merging." The articles in question are (or were) reliably and extensively sourced, and their contents belong in the two articles I have just linked to. (My view is that those two articles should be kept -- I have given my reasons above.) Richard75 (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I have undone these merges. While improvements are certainly welcome, articles should not be merged or redirected at the eleventh hour of an AfD, as this disrupts the AfD process. If consensus at the close of this AfD is to merge/redirect, then fine, but unless you're the closing admin you should not pre-emptively make that call. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Here is my proposed version of the Mega-City One article with some other articles merged into it, which (once WP:CWW has been complied with would, I think, deserve to survive, along with the articles Judge (2000 AD) and Mutants (Judge Dredd storyline) -- I have changed the latter into an article about a story rather than just about an aspect of a fictional world (which was why it was nominated for deletion in its original incarnation). Richard75 (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. Lawgiver (Judge Dredd) has significant coverage in reliable sources, such as Baltimore Afro-American. I don't agree with the mass nomination. See Wikipedia:BUNDLE for more info on the type of articles most appropriate for bundling at AFD. Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not my first rodeo. I followed BUNDLE: The articles are all of a group and have the same problems. The single source you have presented does not appear to be sufficient to pass the notability bar, which is that the subject have received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources (deliberately not a high bar to pass, but a bar nonetheless). A single internet article doesn't cut it (can't tell how significant the coverage is in that article, since it's paywalled). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, find an opportunity within your busy rodeo schedule to thoughtfully reread Wikipedia:BUNDLE, take some time to reflect upon it, and take into account the large amount of feedback you have received here that your bundling of these AFDs has not been helpful. Also, when you find yourself dismissing sources you admit to failing to read, leaving over a dozen comments on an AFD, and being so repetitive in your comments that you are beginning them with the word "again," then it's a good time for you to step away from your filibuster. Unless they've fallen on their head repeatedly during their rodeo career, the closing admin will not need you to continue to repeat your comments ad nauseam 15 more times before they can figure out where you stand on whether these articles you've nominated for deletion ought to be deleted even though you haven't read any of the available sources. Rangoondispenser (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with BUNDLE, thank you very much. Listing 28 articles individually would be a waste of everyone's time, since each nomination would be identical. "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately". None of these stand on their own merits—They are all summary-only descriptions and bereft of significant secondary source coverage. I did read the source you posted, what is available without paying for a subscription, and since its introduction is basically "remember that cool fictional gun? I'd buy one if it was real", I'm skeptical that its coverage is sufficient to support a stand-alone ariticle. If you've got access to the full article, would you mind describing the level of coverage it gives? Does it go into real-world descriptions such as the idea behind the gun and its impact on the comics and culture? That would be useful to know, but if I can't evaluate the sources merits without getting past a paywall, then neither can anyone else. There is a difference between fillibustering and giving reasoned responses to arguments. As the nominator, and with so many articles on the plate, it's pertinent for me to respond to relevant arguments. Please don't accuse me of not reading sources when (A) I have, to the best of my ability, and (B) you've no basis for that accusation. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"remember that cool fictional gun? " Yes, Lawgiver should probably be merged into List of Judge Dredd's cool fictional guns. However the trouble here is that you've already nominated that list article for deletion too, and there's little scope for a closing admin to go through each and every article and apply their own judgement to them (such a case would be inevitable for DRV, as it would be seen as ignoring whatever consensus the AfD did produce). Instead you're pretty much forcing the closer to block vote all as delete or all as keep - which almost always heads to delete, because one clearly non-notable article sticks out far more than one clearly notable article does. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I say you haven't read the sources is because you keep saying you haven't read the sources. Rangoondispenser (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please point specifically to anywhere that I have claimed not to have read the sources. I said above that I read as much of the source as I could without getting past the paywall. Andy, closing admins are supposed to weigh the arguments and judge the consensus. If the arguments/consensus are that a specific couple of these should be kept, the closer is perfectly empowered to keep those while deleting the rest. This kind of thing happens all the time when articles are bundled in an AfD. If all are kept, chances are likely we'll just be back here in a few weeks for 28 separate discussions, and !voters will just moan that they should all have been bundled. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three instances where you say you have not read a source: [19], [20], [21]. It's a great article; you should read it some time. Rangoondispenser (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably read those diffs again, because now, for the fourth time, I'm declaring that I read as much of the source as is viewable without purchasing a subscription to the site. The portion that is viewable for free doesn't strike me as significant coverage. Now, for the second time, I'm asking you: how much coverage does it give? Does it go into real-world descriptions such as the idea behind the gun and its impact on the comics and culture? Since you appear to have access to the full article, it would be prudent to describe the level of coverage it gives the topic. This would go much further towards demonstrating the topic's merits than continually trying to attack my credibility. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining for the fourth time that you have not read this source. I think that's probably clear enough, but feel free to explain it again. Rangoondispenser (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now twice asked you a direct and pertinent question about the source, and twice you have failed to answer it. I think that tells me all I need to know, but feel free to ignore the question again. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete All~~ After giving the matter some consideration, I've decided I agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my position to Delete all except Mega-City One and Lawgiver (Judge Dredd) since sources for these now seem to have been provided. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added references to 10 reliable secondary sources, [22] which includes a section that is exclusively about real-world impact.[23] Rangoondispenser (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've easily added references to 5 reliable secondary sources to Mega-City One. [24] Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Improper mass nomination, since it is not reasonable to assume that all these articles are of the same level of notability. Some are undoubtedly suitable for merging, but we have to figure that out one at a time. The risk of making wrong decisions is greatly increased when we do this many at a time. I'd suggest look for the ones on the least notable characters, and discussing them first--its normally fairly easy to agree of merges for such articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are all of the same type and suffer the same problems (plot-only descriptions, which is fixable through editing, and lack of available secondary source coverage, which is not). It is therefore reasonable to assume that they are of the same level of notability, given their topics and the lack of secondary sources. As mentioned in the nomination, plot-only content bereft of secondary source coverage is not suitable for merging. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, continuing to bang that drum doesn't make it any more applicable than the first time you started banging it. I get that that is your perspective. And I would guess others do too. At this point, when quite a few have said: split the nom - Why are you opposing it? If you really were looking for consensus... But I'm seriously thinking that perhaps you're not. You appear to be hoping to "push this through" despite many complaints. Which means: Regardless of result, DRV is likely in this discussion's future, regardless of closure, simply because of these concerns of bundling. Abusing the process (which is what this is looking like) is just another way of gaming the system... (Waits for accusations of not presuming good faith.) - jc37 09:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is my (somewhat jaded) expectation that if I had nominated all 28 of these articles individually, there would be an equal number of editors complaining that they should have been bundled together. I have seen editors accused of "abusing the process" for nominating dozens of related articles simultaneously with near-identical nominations, with the accusers complaining that they should have been bundled and discussed as a group. Having 28 separate nominations gives just as much appearance of "gaming the system", as AfD watchers can't be expected to keep up with them all. It's a damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't scenario, so I chose the option where I'd only have to take part in 1 discussion rather than 28. Having taken part in both types of AfDs before (single group nom vs. many individual noms), I've seen backlash from both sides and expected to be accused of gaming the system in either case. I decided not to be deterred by those who will attack the method either way. This is why I rebut those who wish to dismiss the AfD outright simply because it involves a number of articles; I entirely expect they would be just as dismissive of 28 individual AfDs, no matter how valid the concerns of the nomination. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than thinking your only options were A) bundle 27 other articles with your Lawgiver (Judge Dredd) AFD, or B) list 28 separate AFDs simultaneously, you could have -- as WP:BUNDLE explains -- C) listed that one Lawgiver (Judge Dredd) AFD to see how it goes. Or, since your expertise on 35-year-old British comics doesn't seem to match your expertise at rodeo-related articles, you could have D) sought help from more knowledgeable other editors, perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary so far[edit]

Summary so far: After 11 days we appear to have no consensus. As I read the above, three editors (Warden, AndyDingley, and Ragoondispensar) appear to want to keep these articles, four (the nominator and JohnnyMrNinja, sgeureka and PolisherofCobwebs) want to delete everything, and six (JellySoup, JGreb, Anothernoob, jc37, Emperor and I) want to keep some articles and delete or merge other articles, depending on the content of each article. I think we should default to the latter view (although you might say that I would say that...). Can we get an admin to close this yet? Richard75 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be against keeping some and deleting some (obviously where this is chosen appropriately). The problem is that this type of bundled deletion, on articles of this nature, gives no opportunity for such a result. Who gets to choose which are kept and which deleted? Does a closing admin toss a coin? Or does it come down to the admin's choice, which implicitly tends to depend more on the individual admin than on the articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the closing admin reads the discussion and makes a determination on what to keep and what to delete based on the arguments and their weighing of consensus, just like they would on any AfD. That multiple articles are involved in the discussion makes it a little trickier, but doesn't stop the process. It's not an all-or-nothing scenario. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty eight articles, and barely a word so far on which is which to be kept or deleted. That's no different to picking an admin and telling them to choose their favourite handful. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only 2 of the 28 topics for which anyone has demonstrated secondary source coverage to make them more than plot-only articles are Lawgiver and Mega-City One. Hypothetically, if I were the closing admin, those are the ones I'd consider keeping. For the other 26, no one has been adequately rebutted the concerns of the nomination (lack of availability of secondary source coverage, plot-only descriptions). Those are the ones I'd likely delete. We do entrust our admins with decision-making and trust that they possess reasoning skills. No one is picking articles out of a hat here. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about the contents of Category:Judge_Dredd_characters (83 of them, some redirs, some listed here)? How about the other articles and categories under Category:Judge Dredd? (Several dozen more of them) There is only one credible reason to delete any of this content, and that is that it depends overly on in-universe matters described only in the primary sources of the comic strip. Would you suggest that the only article to survive should be Judge Dredd (Super NES video game), because although being a thoroughly inconsequential game on an obsolete platform, physical objects for sale naturally tend to collect more coverage than literature does? That may indeed be a reason to delete - yet Batman's utility belt gets an instant bye past this, just because it's DC comics. The Shrike, again US rather than UK, didn't even survive its AfD but was quietly restored a few weeks later. It's hard to argue against a policy that's so clearly stated as to be against using WP to cover in-universe topics around fiction - yet that's what vast swathes of WP are indeed doing, provided that they're popular with the US fanbois. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles are matters for future AfDs, if necessary. Other stuff does not concern me at this point and is not particularly pertinent to this AfD. If other articles have problems, feel free to deal with them in whatever manner you see fit. It does not change the fact that these articles clearly have problems: I nominated these articles because I glanced through {{Judge Dredd}} and these struck me as the ones most glaring failing NOT#PLOT and least likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (cursory Google searches reinforced my suspicion about the source coverage). If there are more Judge Dredd-related articles, or articles in other topic areas you come across, that have the same problems, feel free to take some sort of action on them. It does not change the validity of this nomination. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth AFD is not a vote, so no need to go about vote-counting. I've provided at least 15 sources for these topics that according to the nominator were all grouped together because there are no sources for any of them. Clearly, nominator and anyone who agreed with them is just plain wrong, and if any of these articles are to be considered for deletion in the future they should be looked at individually. However, maybe the closing admin should relist this for another week with the stipulation that only the nominator can continue discussion. This will ensure that IllaZilla has the last word and hopefully a full opportunity to repeat their comments as many times as they feel necessary. Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in my reply to Richard above, I acknowledge that you have demonstrated secondary source coverage for 2 of the nominated topics (Lawgiver and Mega-City One). As I said near the start of the discussion, I have no prejudice against such efforts. However, demonstrating sources for 2 of the nominated articles does not prove that I or anyone else is wrong about the other 26. And please spare us the snark. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want 28 articles to be evaluated separately, do not WP:BUNDLE them. Rangoondispenser (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted them to be evaluated together, since they all had the same issues and are of the same type. That does not preclude different outcomes for individual articles in the bundle. But you already know that. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:40, 8 March 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 nomination withdrawn. CT Cooper · talk 21:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anri Jokhadze[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet Notability requirments under WP:ARTIST. Aaron Booth (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I answered to you on your discussion page.--U.Steele (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that WP:ARTIST covers the painting kind, whereas Wikipedia:Notability (music) covers musicians, songs etc Keep. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I work on page now. Where do you hurry?--U.Steele (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He will represent Georgia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Instant notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Evidently notable, meeting WP:GNG, for example this recent article and a quick glance at the Google News Search. Judging by the cited claims in the existing sources in the article, it's difficult to believe Jokhadze is not a well-known personality in Georgia! Sionk (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Performer has taken part in Eurovision before (see link http://natfinals.50webs.com/Georgia2012.html) and is taking part in his own right. Is clearly a star in his own country even though English language sources might be found wanting. Taking part in an international competition should satisfy GNG and ARTIST. doktorb _words^deeds 12:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously Strong Keep If such articles become deleted, then we'd might as well start deleting all articles relating to one-time participants in Eurovision, and create a black hole in a project. Many English-speaking users worldwide rely on such Eurovision-related articles for the purpose of research for whatever reasons, whether it be pub quizzes, or general enthusiasm for the Eurovision Song Contest, and everything - artist(s) and song(s). Don't start crashing down a European heritage and cause a huge research black hole. Wesley☀Mouse 17:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn The article looks much better than it did the other day. Now we have four sources. It still has some grammar issues, but that can be easily taken care of. -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:44, 26 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 101 Mall[edit]

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

Non-notable mall, no references and can't find any JayJay^{Talk to me} 04:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Calling this a mall is a stretch; it's more a small swath of businesses in an office complex — and even then it seems to be just banks, offices and service tenants. I can't find any sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small, nonnotable mall, only of local interest. And per 10 LbHammer. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world. Edison (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had tagged this 106,000 square foot mall for notability because I questioned whether it met our notability standards. It does have run-of-the-mill coverage, but nothing sufficient to lead to a notability determination for a mall of this size. I agree with the above !votes that it does not.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If deleted, move all content to Timmins#Economy.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content fails wp:v, and as it has been challenged requires inline refs. If there were a consensus to move, though, that could be done -- though as I understand it the obligation then would fall on the person suggesting the move to move all relevant article history, etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:07, 3 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1st Financial Federal Credit Union[edit]

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

Non-notable credit union and references don't help JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, off-the-charts COI as well--author is 1stfinancialFedCU (talk · contribs). This has been here since 2010. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 20:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious advertising. If the article should be started again, it should be new, notable and non-COI. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 29 February 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. I have blocked the nominator as a sockpuppet of banned User:SuperblySpiffingPerson. Hut 8.5 11:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of surviving veterans of World War I[edit]

Delete and SALT Nominated for reason that it has not been appropriately reformed (even in the slightest way) or redirected through any consensus from involved editors in talkpage discussion as desired from a result of the prior deletion nomination, and it remains a list of other than what it is titled to be: to whit, Poland is nowhere accepted as a combatant party in any stage World War I, even by WP:FRINGE academics. Allsold (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ten days is not a long period of time for the article to be "reformed" as described above. This article just came through AfD 10 days ago with a keep result; I don't see anything to change that result at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see as having been achieved in that 10 days of abdicating to allow the involved editors to reform it? Do you want another 10 days of this misnomer? And another?Allsold (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, restructure and rename. Alas, an article with this exact name is no longer appropriate. However, the encyclopedic information contained in this article and its history in recent years certainly deserves a place here, in coverage of the longest surviving veterans (now departed) of the "Great War". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per both users above. A nomination so soon after another which resulted in a clear keep seems rather petty. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: and verging on a bad faith nomination. AfD is not for people who dislike the earlier results and want to keep snapping at the apple, nor for venting - given the nom's vandalization of the article - an apparent animus towards Poland. Not the first time in the nom's short Wikipedia career where he's attempted to inject his own POV into the proceedings.
That being said, if nom is exercised that no disposition of the article has yet been decided and implemented, he has made no attempt on the article's talk page either to make a proposal for the same, support any of the proposals mooted or chivvy the participants towards a decision. In any event, nearly a century after the war, I am unimpressed by the assertion that ten days' worth of no final decision is particularly ghastly or objectionable; this is not a race, and prizes are not being awarded for speed. Ravenswing 05:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have witnessed that any and all attempts to move the article to relevancy, particularly since the abdication decision at last nom, are consistently nullified by the current crop of owning editors. Case in point is the continuing references to the irrelevant figure Kowalski. Please offer us any reliably sourced reference, anywhere, to Poland being accorded the status of a combatant party in the war? Until then it has proven the incapability and unwillingness of the involved group of editors to have brought the subject matter to relevance and by now to have wrapped it up. Oh, and there is a race and it's a race to keep content on this database relevant; one which the rest of us intend to win. If we took as long to acknowledge the death of Whitney Houston as its taking to acknowledge that there hasn't been relevance to the concept of this "list", which would have been at least since the happening of the event that justified the second nomination early last year, we'd be laughed at all the way to work and back. Take this decision out of the hands of the prevailing editorship. They're stalling and doing nothing for which the ridicule they earn turns out to be shared by us all.114.73.109.103 (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nom. Lugnuts (talk) 10:09, 26 February 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 Ostashkov. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrashov[edit]

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

The article is unreferenced(It has an EL but its to a forum which is not a RS) and I couldn't come up with anything on a google search. ...William 02:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ...William 02:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 02:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ...William 02:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ...William 02:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the correct name of the town, where the concentration camp where this is reported to have occurred was located, is Ostashkov. Sources, and indeed Wikipedia, discuss it as an addendum to the Katyn massacre. But obviously this is a mis-spelling of Ostashkov that, since it happened once to the extent that someone attempted to start an article at the title, should be a prophylactic redirect to the town. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect and close this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect and close. I'm the nominator. When nominating I didn't know this was a case of misspelling. Learn something new everyday...William 19:41, 27 February 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. Any potential renaming of the article should be discussed at article talk page, or fi necessary WP:RM. ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute about Jesus' execution method[edit]

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

Article is a content fork to promote a view of Jehovah's Witnesses. The issue is more of a difference in doctrine rather than an active 'dispute'. The relevant content could be greatly reduced and merged to Crucifixion of Jesus and Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Cross, according to context. Jeffro77 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
Delete. I am not convinced its current content does promote the Jehovah's Witness doctrine, but a recent flurry of edits to the opening sentence prove that few editors can agree on the actual point of the article and therefore what form it should take. I agree that there is no "dispute" about the issue; this is merely the case of a single religion dissenting from (or denying) the orthodox view and scratching around for 19th century sources that appear to support it. I agree that the relevant aspects of the JW belief can easily be accommodated elsewhere, and that any disagreement among reliable sources over the shape of the gibbet can be discussed at a different place. This is a troublesome article that has undergone numerous name changes and it gives little evidence that the best-intentioned editors can remedy it. It was probably just a bad idea to begin with. BlackCab (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article was started several years ago to promote the JW view, and then opposing views were added in attempt to provide balance. The fact remains that there isn't really an active dispute between any specific parties. Notable views on the shape of the device purportedly used can be briefly covered at the main crucifixion article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments below, regarding the fact that there is nothing brief about the topic, that notability of the topic is not disputed, that the rationale was "content reduction", and that an Afd is not the the vehicle for managing content disputes when consensus cannot be reached. History2007 (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As user Jeffro states, it may have started as way to "promote the JW view, and then opposing views were added". May not be an active dispute, but the article can still cover the history of the dispute, whether JW or secular historians weigh in. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Oppose'" vote most likely means "Keep", so could you clarify that please so it is similar to the others? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I believe I made this very suggestion here. I've since gone cold on the idea. Watch Tower publications rely on just three sources (and a blatant misuse of another) so I think the origin of their belief can be expressed in a sentence or two at the Beliefs of JW article. As another editor on the talk page suggested, it may be a rather big job to outline all the sources supporting a traditional cross-shaped gibbet. The deniers, or sceptic groups, are comparatively few in number. BlackCab (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There isn't and hasn't been a notable dispute. There are varying views about the shape of the device, and those can be briefly presented at Crucifixion of Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, the "briefly" part is not accurate. This subject is of heated interest to so many people around the world, and so much material exists on it that there is only one brief conclusion: it is not a "brief subject". An entire section can be written on the "artistic depictions" of the crucifixion method, e.g. use of ropes, standing platform, tree vs solid cross, three nails vs four nails, etc., etc. This is not a brief topic. If you wish to delete some of the content because you disagree with it, you need to follow the proper Wikipedia protocols via consensus. An Afd is absolutely not a vehicle for "content reduction". I would have never nominated an article for Afd just to reduce its content. Afd should rely on notability first and foremost which was not even part of the rationale for the Afd. The topic is notable. Period. History2007 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominating editor has been surprisingly candid that he would rather see this article deleted than improved!--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then that means that this is a case of "An Afd that is not an Afd" because it is an Afd not based on policy, but based on a content dispute. In view of that, this may even have to be a WP:SK 2.d: nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, in any case. History2007 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I missed this. No, the AfD was not raised to end an editing dispute. The reason for raising was quite clearly indicated, with intent to reduce and merge notable aspects to other articles rather than place undue weight on something that is simply an alternative point of doctrine held by some groups rather than a 'dispute'. AuthorityTam has distorted the point of my comment in the supplied diff. It is not the case that I merely wanted to delete the article instead of improving it. My intention was that I wasn't interested in improving the article because I saw other reasons for deleting it. If BlackCab, the editor to whom I was responding, misinterpreted my intent, I apologise.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Crucifixion of Jesus and Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Cross, merging to both and redirecting to a disambig page. The content is worth saving, but it needs cleanup and isn't worthy of its own page. ChromaNebula (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Crucifixion of Jesus and Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Cross, per ChromaNebula. Generally fails notability for a stand-alone article. Nonnotable fringe theory. Edison (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is clear notability to this view alone, per its discussion in other sources. Provided that an appropriately NPOV article is maintained, it's entirely appropriate to cover it here. WP is not claiming that this viewpoint is true, merely that some believe it, and that others have commented upon that belief. It is however a minority view. It would be unbalanced to cover it to this depth, in the main article (a section and link would be appropriate). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; encyclopedic discussion of the shape of impalement gibbets is plainly notable. Should Wikipedia alone keep its head in the sand? This article here isn't even slightly POV, but contains just as much 'proof' that the gibbet was a crux immissa as it does 'proof' that the gibbet was a crux simplex; both those analyses are presented here in an encyclopedic manner. This article is certainly not an example of WP:CFORK, where the same topic is discussed in parallel articles. Incidentally (and at the risk of having WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS screamed at me), Wikipedia has other articles related to hypotheses about Jesus: Swoon hypothesis, Stolen body hypothesis, Vision hypothesis. Comparing and contrasting, is Crux simplex hypothesis uniquely intolerable? The article at Crucifixion of Jesus discusses everything related to Jesus' crucifixion, and has just a sentence or two about the shape of the gibbet; extended discussion of gibbet shape there would constitute WP:UNDUE. Both sides of the gibbet-shape "dispute" are well sourced from secondary sources (rather than JW literature), and it seems remarkably unlikely that the Wikipedia community would benefit from eliminating the majority of the topic discussion just to shoehorn the topic into a single section at Crucifixion of Jesus. The "dispute" seems to have continued for more than 150 years now (preceding Jehovah's Witnesses) and most of the cited scholars are not Witnesses. Perhaps reinstate the former, less-ambiguous article title? I'm still unconvinced about the nominator's decision to change from what was a perfectly acceptable name ("Dispute about the shape of the gibbet of Jesus"). Compare Stauros; that is the odd duck article.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that shapes other than a cross have been posed over time is notable, but could be easily presented much more briefly at the main crucifixion article (and to some degree, it already does). Much of the content of the article that is the subject of this AfD has been greatly conflated to give the appearance of a more significant 'dispute'. It is not necessary for the article to include every statement ever written on the matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Method of Jesus' execution. This is hardly a fringe theory, but the article should be broader than the pole vs. cross debate - mention should be made of the theory that Jesus died on a T-shaped cross. This is actually mentioned in the article, but lumped in with "crossbeam" theories. St Anselm (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The subject is of sufficient notability that the page is justified, and dispute seems to be a proper characterization of the subject considering the polarized views held by individual groups. I therefore think it should be kept as it currently exists. Just as a side note, somehow, I seem to have been left out of the AfD notification process, but fortunately I discovered it in time to participate. Willietell (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. If this article were deleted, a new article should be written on "Early Christian descriptions of the cross of Christ". I think this would be preferable to the present arrangement, but do not wish to make an issue of it. Esoglou (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (and rename, but no merge). The subject of the article is notable, there is no question in that and no one even denies the notability on this talk page - so deletion is out of the question. And the quality of content is no reason for deletion, given the notability. And the rationale in the Afd nomination is to "delete some of the content" because it may be POV!. Really? Is an Afd a method for content adjustment? If a user wants to delete content he should build consensus for deletion using proper Wikipedia policies, not use an Afd as a "means for content deletion". Afd is not for dispute resolution over content. And it absolutely (I mean absolutely) does not make sense to merge this with the Crucifixion of Jesus page because there is so much text here that will dominate that page. This is a small part of the Crucifixion episode and can not dominate that page. There is already a summary of it there, and if it gets any larger, will have to split out anyway, per WP:Undue. However, Wikipedia aside, somehow this topic (which is of minor interest to most people) seems to generate a special type of obsession in a number of people around the world that defies comprehension. Hence, it is not surprising that it will continue to be hotly debated on Wikipedia. It needs its own page and its own professional debating society, hence the page needs to remain. But a rename to Method of Jesus' execution may make sense as StAnselm suggested above. History2007 (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest dropping the whole article, as is, into the parent article. Nor did I raise the AfD as a 'vehicle for article reduction' in situ, as you suggested in an earlier comment above. I suggested that a reduced summary of this article be merged to the parent article. For example, the section "Stauros" interpreted as ambivalent in meaning is not especially pertinent to a dispute, and could be greatly reduced in the parent article, probably to a sentence or maybe 2. It seems the 'dispute' article aims to score points about how many prefer a particular view rather than the actual notable matter about what views exist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Method of Jesus' execution as suggested above. There is scope to expand the brief summary about nails and ropes from Crucifixion of Jesus#Nails in the context of a broader article. The dispute with JWs might still form a large part of the article, but the page could benefit from expansion including rhetorical, theological and artistic interpretations of the method of crucifixion. Oppose merge as this is a side topic that should be covered in the encyclopedia, but would be too long to incorporate into either of the merge targets named above. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the user talk page link provided by AuthorityTam above, this seems like a clear case of WP:SK 2.d: i.e. nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, given that the nominator stated that he would prefer deletion over article improvement via consensus. History2007 (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I think AuthorityTam is being mischievous in his suggestion. Jeffro had previously clearly expressed his desire to have the page deleted. I sought some feedback from him over a proposal to rewrite and reangle the article; his response was to repeat his earlier preference for deletion and therefore indifference at my suggestion. The ongoing changes in the title of the article and its lead section show quite clearly the disagreement and uncertainty over the thrust of the article. Should it highlight the beliefs of JWs as its lede? Should it emphasise that religion's "dispute" with orthodox Christianity? Should it state that the religion denies the orthodox view and then analyse its sources for such a belief and present the contradictory evidence? Should it focus on the range of possibilities and mention the religion only in passing? Or should the range of beliefs about the shape of the gibbet be merged into another article? If the article is saved but this issue isn't resolved, it will remain as a poor article and the subject of a slow-motion edit war. BlackCab (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-All that could have been said without the unnecessary preemptive assault on editor User:AuthorityTam's motivation in putting forth an argument. To to call his suggestion "mischievous" is simply uncivil. Please desist from such comments in the future as they are unnecessary and simply detract from the discussion. Willietell (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the general discussion: On the part of more sides than one, there has been so much bandying about of ad hominem comments that I think the only solution would be for Jeffro to withdraw his proposal, close the discussion, and then start it anew in the hope that next time editors will discuss the proposal, not the supposed motives or inconsistencies of other editors. Esoglou (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I can not agree with that at all. This Afd is most likely going to fail on Sunday March 4. 2012. Now 3 days before an Afd fails, the nominator can not withdraw it so that he can roll the dice again in 2 weeks, hoping for a better outcome. That is not how Afds work. Once it is close to failing, one can not attempt a run-around 2 weeks later and take up everyone's time again. If Jeffro withdraws that will be declared a "Speedy close" due to failure of the Afd. History2007 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly WP:SK (with prejudice against renomination). Furthermore, it's disappointing and unseemly for a certain editor to namecallingly refer to me as "mischievous". This certain editor, User:BlackCab aka User:LTSally, hyperventilatingly caterwauls about supposed slurs by me (here and here) and dismissively imagines me a "Jehovah's Witness" with 'Watchtower-tinted spectacles' and 'trained to hate those who criticise your dear leaders'; for the sole reason that I prefer discussion of JWs to be accurate, precise, and encyclopedic. Quite ironic by contrast, editor User:BlackCab aka User:LTSally explicitly refers to himself as a former JW and has written of being "sickened" by the {ahem} "claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community" of Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab's outrageous namecalling is too-frequent and unhelpful, and he should stop.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the personal niceties between you guys aside, do you have a policy based reference to "with prejudice against renomination". How does that get achieved, so we do not have to read through the old pleasantries people have written to each other again next month. History2007 (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yet another personal attack by AuthorityTam against BlackCab, who isn't even the nominator. AuthorityTam has been requested elsewhere, repeatedly, to cease this behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you made a clear case for WP:SK. Your reasoning that keeping the article will result in a "slow-motion edit war" indicates that attempted deletion is a path to "avoid an ongoing slow motion edit dispute". This is exactly, exactly what WP:SK 2.d is about: nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion. Your comment made the case for WP:SK 2.d clear. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the nominator, so my views don't impact on WP:SK at all. I have already explained the deficiencies of the article and why I think it should go. The inability of editors to agree on the point of it is central to that. And I find it odd that you, suddenly so emotional about it, appear to have never contributed to the article to improve it or suggest a way out of the impasse. BlackCab (talk) 01:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fact that:

a number of users have an edit dispute,
one of them nominates the article for deletion to end the dispute

provide the exact criteria for the application of WP:SK 2.d. That is clearly the case here. History2007 (talk) 05:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seemed to be being accused of something here. However, I have indicated clear reasons both now and about a year ago why I believe the article does not need to be here. If other people disagree, and the article is kept, well that's fine. But then those people should actually do something about the poor quality of the article to establish the notability that has been claimed instead of just complaining when they perceive that the article is under 'threat'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About a year ago, I suggested that I would prepare a sandbox article for reducing the dispute article to something usable at the crucifixion article. This was met with dramatic claims that this article could be expanded with what were claimed to be other 'significant' details, such as an alleged 'dispute' about the number of nails used. Since it was claimed that this article would be improved, I terminated work on my sandbox copy. Since then, very little has happened to improve this article, and it still does very little to indicate why the 'dispute' is significant. See Talk:Crucifixion of Jesus#Merge (POV fork).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that other Wikipedia editors did not spend time to work on a given article is absolutely not a reason for an Afd on the article. As StAnselm stated above the title may have to be Jesus' execution method rather than have the term dispute in it, but teh topic is clearly notable, as evidenced by the fact that you did not dispute its notability in you Afd rationale. However, it is totally clear to whoever reads the discussions that this article has been the subject of a dispute and the Afd has resulted from said edit dispute. In Wikipedia terms, that is called: WP:SK 2.d. That is clear. History2007 (talk) 09:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This is clear". That's your opinion. You are pushing this line hard, History, but we might as well let the discussion proceed. The nominator gave his reasons and editors are responding on that basis. There seems to be strong support for "keep"; let's hear all their opinions on what should be done with this article to save it from the mess it's now in. BlackCab (talk) 10:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should wait for further comments. That is also clear. History2007 (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus' execution method might be an alternative name for Crucifixion of Jesus, which already exists. There still doesn't seem to be clear notability for this article in its unnecessarily lengthy form. It is still the case that the significant points could be summarised at the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see what everyone else thinks about that other rename, given that it misses WP:COMMONNAME by a few miles... I will not even say anything... History2007 (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't vouch for anyone else, but I did not seriously intend renaming Crucifixion of Jesus to Jesus' execution method, much less renaming this article to that title. Such a move would make the point of this article even more ambiguous, as it does not really indicate any notable dispute, or why the issue is notable at all beyond what could be briefly summarised at the main crucifixion article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have said these a few times now. So let us see how the Afd progresses. History2007 (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Based on the comment above, if the nominator withdraws this Afd, will need to be declared as a close due to failure of the Afd, so the Afd can not be restarted in 2 weeks. Once an Afd is close to the end, with no hope of success, the nominator can not speedy end it, hoping to roll the dice again a month later. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if an AfD legit fails, the article can be renominated a month later... Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what a lovely waste of time that would be... History2007 (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously a fairly strong concensus to keep the article. I hope the same diligence will now be applied to improving the article. I will be removing the article from my Watchlist shortly after the AfD ends and won't be actively working on it. I reserve the right to change my mind about editing the article at any time, for any reason, or for no reason.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is reasonable. In another month or two I will see if time allows me to go and add some material there. I do not know the JW, so I am not sure what the story is, but there is obviously some "off Wiki" heat about that group. But I will try to stay away from that angle. History2007 (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger on the grounds that this is a content fork. This is therefore not a proposal to delete the article and so the discussion should be terminated on procedural grounds. Warden (talk) 21:58, 4 March 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 Katie Holmes. Sandstein 21:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suri Cruise[edit]

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

No more notability now than when the AfD decision several years ago was to redirect to her mother's article. A six year old has no inherent notability and there is nothing that has changed since the initial AfD. My attempts at returning the article to a redirect were reverted as "vandalism". Twice, despite my attempt at discussion of the subject. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Katie Holmes. While Suri is a cutie-pie, she is not independently notable outside of her parents and 99.9% of the news articles about her talk about her in relation to her famous parents. She's just one of those kids that is only famous for having famous parents and has no true notability of her own.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

A google news search for "suri cruise -tom -kate -katie" to exclude her parents still returns 26 hits, an order of magnitude more than the 2 hits for fashion model Ambre Anderson, whose notability is not in dispute. We wouldn't consider U.S. vice president Joe Biden to be nonnotable just because most of his news mentions also mention the president. Warren Dew (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great analogy. Joe Biden was a U.S. senator (qualifying as notable under WP:POLITICIAN) when Obama was 11 years old. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why redirect to Katie's article and not Tom's? That doesn't seem right. Is the mother somehow a more relevant parent than the father? I don't agree with that. hmwith☮ 20:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since the previous AfD, and unlike most other celebrity babies, Suri Cruise has grown into a fashion icon in her own right. Her fashion choices are frequently discussed in the style and parenting sections of news sources, and there are at least two high traffic third party blogs dedicated to following her.

For reference, the previous AfD was opened on 20 April 2006, when Suri Cruise was only 2 days old, and closed on 28 April 2006. Her birth had been the subject of a large amount of media coverage, but at only a few days old, she had not then had time to do anything independently notable. The result of that discussion, which had approximately equal numbers of keep and delete votes, was to keep the page as a redirect and merge the information on the page into the page for her mother. However, she has since had six years to become notable. Eventually the administrator who had protected the redirect unprotected it so that an article could be created in December 2011.

Suri Cruise's current Google search stats compare favorably to those of Ambre Anderson, whose notability does not seem to be in dispute (I chose her because she was the first entry in the first list of fashion people I could find on Wikipedia and because she, like Suri, is probably the only notable person with her name):

Ambre Anderson google search: 9,300,000 results (0.28 seconds)

google image search: About 165,000 results (0.34 seconds)

google news search: 2 results (0.16 seconds)

Suri Cruise google search: About 11,900,000 results (0.21 seconds)

google image search: About 13,900,000 results (0.30 seconds)

google news search: About 134 results (0.19 seconds)

Since this comparison is between people famous for fashion, the image search is particularly notable, where Suri Cruise has 80 times as many hits as a typical notable fashion model. In addition, a large majority of the images clearly feature Suri, and do not include the faces of either of her parents, demonstrating that her notability is now independent of that of her parents. Warren Dew (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only thing is that google hits and results don't really count towards notability. You'd have to show that there were multiple articles from independent sources talking about Suri as a person and fashion icon independent of her parents. Of course there's going to always be a mention, but most of the articles I've ever read about her has always been in relation to her parents.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Response Well, it's easy to check out some of the 13 million image hits and see that 90% of them are focused on Suri, not on her parents. Alternatively, check out some of these sites and articles. Most don't mention her parents at all, and those that do mention them only in the context of their being her parents, not of her being their child:

http://suricruisefashion.blogspot.com/

http://surisburnbook.tumblr.com/

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2012-02/23/c_131425949.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB7VfMrvv0g

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/suri-cruise-becomes-a-style-icon-398464

http://www.stockportfashion.com/381_2011/suri-cruise-fashion-icon-in-the-making

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-style/news/happy-5th-birthday-suri-cruise-2011184

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1384107/GLAMOURs-Best-Dressed-Women-2011-Suri-Cruise-barely-nappies.html

http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/fashion/celebrity-fashion/2011/04/glamour-best-dressed-women-2011

The last two document that Suri Cruise placed 21st in Glamour magazine's 2011 list of best dressed women, ahead of Keira Knightley, Jessica Alba, Kim Kardashian, Miley Cyrus, Eva Longoria, and Beyonce Knowles, among others. I hope no one is arguing that their articles should be deleted, yet Suri is arguably more notable than they are in the fashion world. Warren Dew (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that Suri doesn't fall under WP:ENTERTAINER, so the cult fanbase part of that listing doesn't really apply to her. She ends up falling under the general notability guidelines for WP:BIO and being listed for a best dressed listing might only qualify as one event. (WP:ONEEVENT) The thing is, the same things were being said about Madonna's Lourdes, with her being listed as a fashion icon for a short period of time and Lourdes really isn't notable outside of her famous mother and I'm not entirely certain that Suri is notable enough in fashion to warrant an article. Can you find more articles that focus solely on Suri that are from reliable and independent sources that talk about her in ways that don't mention the Glamour magazine mention? Hits from fan pages and non-reliable sites don't really count towards notability, unforunately.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I can't say much with respect to Madonna's Lourdes, whom I had never heard of until now - I don't actually follow popular culture - but I do note that a Google news search on "'lourdes leon' -madonna" to exclude the French city and her mother's name provides no English language hits at all, and the handful of foreign language hits slip through only because "Madonna" is spelled differently in those languages. Suri, in contrast, has far more current news coverage free of her parents' names - more than Ambre Anderson, as noted above, who is a notable fashion model. If your concern is that Suri Cruise's popularity is only a short term thing, I can assure you that's not the case - she has been touted as a fashion icon since she was a year old and her popularity has only grown since, for her entire life. She has also had a substantial effect on children's fashions. For example, when she first wore high heels at the age of 3, there were lots of articles about how shocking and medically unhealthy that was, and virtually no relevant shopping results (I was looking for high heels for my toddler at the time). Her wearing them set a trend, though, and now there are thousands of shopping results for toddler heels and even the medical articles are starting to say high heels are okay within limits.

With respect to sources, I personally think the cult fanbase criteria is just a clarification of how the general rules can work for entertainers, not a fundamentally different rule. Be that as it may, only the first 2 of my 10 links are fan sites. Only the last 2 mention the Glamour poll. The remaining 6 are news items focusing on Suri Cruise that don't mention the Glamour magazine poll, as you request. All 6 are from reliable and independent sources - Xinhua is the biggest english language news source in China, the Mirror is a UK newspaper, Trending fashion, Stockport fashion and Us magazine are all fashion news sources, and celebTV.com (from which the youtube clip is taken) is a celebity news site. Some of them also mention Suri's parents, but the focus is on Suri so a casual mention of her parents should not be a disqualifier. If you really want an article that omits her parents' names, though, there's this one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/suri-cruise-heels-fur_n_1151542.html Warren Dew (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, User:Warren Dew is the user who converted the redirect into the article that it is now. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed I was. I was looking for information on Suri Cruise, which is usually a good indication an article is needed, and found only a redirect to pages with no relevant information. So yes, I petitioned an admin to unprotect and I created a stub in the hopes that others would fill it out with information useful to me.

At any rate, there are multiple articles about Suri in independent reliable sources, as documented above, including at least two that don't even mention the name of either parent, so she clearly meets WP:NOTABILITY Warren Dew (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Katie Holmes and speedy close; not notable in her own right. Mt king ^(edits) 00:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral After giving this much thought, I can't reach a decision. She meets the additional criteria in WP:BIO. See WP:ANYBIO ("received a well-known and significant award or honor") and WP:NMODEL ("large fan base or a significant 'cult' following"). However, proof of secondary sources here would cement change my !vote to keep. hmwith☮ 21:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I"m not sure what you mean by "proof of secondary sources"? A number are linked to in the article and in comments above. Warren Dew (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To those who suggest merging with Katie Holmes, why would we redirect to her mother's article? Why not her father's article? I'm a female, and that seems sexist against men/fathers. hmwith☮ 21:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that, at the time, there was more information about Suri in the mother's article than in the father's. You can't redirect to more than one target, so which do you do? I don't think the gender is a factor as such. If the parents are split, though, the redirect would likely go to the custodial parent, which - statistically - is usually the mother. That may have factored as well, if only to create what seemed at the time to be a precedent. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There may be editorial reasons as well - if the father's article is already too long, and the mother's is not, it makes sense to add the child's section to the shorter article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was changed to a redirect when Suri was a newborn, the information on Suri either never made it to the parent's article or the information got deleted because the maintainers of Kate and Tom's articles were understandably uninterested in Suri. That's one of the problems with making it a redirect. Warren Dew (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue the opposite - if there wasn't much information about her individually, that's a really good argument that a redirect is more appropriate than an article. But that might not be the case now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There is no individual encyclopedic notability here. This is a prime example for NOT INHERITED. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 8 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Market share of government-approved Japanese history textbooks[edit]

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

Delete. WP is not a spreadsheet?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook example of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a spreadsheet or a statistics book. JIP | Talk 09:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states list of U.S. States list of american football league seasons List of Presidents of the United States List of British Monarchs etc. etc. etc. That is a very weak claim JIP. Stidmatt (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are not comparable to the one up for deletion. The former contain "information" whereas the later is solely numerical data. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I'd like to politely direct Stidmatt to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS & WP:POINT. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and does not establish what exactly the article is supposed to be about for one, this type of information is not really suited for Wikipedia. OSborn^arf_contribs. 05:41, 28 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Country Gold Weekend[edit]

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

Procedural nom. Was prodded after the first AfD because Keller Broadcasting has gone under. Show no longer seems to exist, there is no longer a website, and because of its marginal notability when it did exist, I think it's time to delete this as well. Valfontis (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the prod of Keller, my suspicion is that the ambitious Mr. Keller is out of the microbroadcasting business and doesn't want Keller or Country Gold around anymore. Since it was only barely notable through the good promotional talents of Mr. Keller, I don't see that it had the longevity or has any chance of becoming any more than a weakly justifiable article. tedder (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability is not temporary. That the show has apparently gone defunct is not a valid reason for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed- but my rationale was that it was barely notable to begin with, and now that there's no hope of further articles to be any more than weakly notable. Basically, there's no bright line. I'm not trying to convince you- just to explain my position. tedder (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability isn't temporary but it's got to be there in the first place before this matters. Notability isn't established here and the references dont demonstrate significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 02:58, 28 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Noland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem notable, sources are only routine. Career section has been unsourced since forever. First AFD was closed only because the subject allegedly asked for it. I speedy-closed the last AFD in 2010 because no deletion argument was raised (seriously, you'd think Jimbo would know better), but I'm still not seeing a true assertation of notability here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being an anchor at a few local news stations does not make her notable. Nothing provided demonstrates that she is a particularly notable local news anchor. All we have is routine coverage of her going from place to place.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Journeywoman anchor who hasn't really been in one market or another for a long period. Current KNBC biography is just as vague as this one (also, she is one of the few on the KNBC bio page who doesn't do any social networking). Also taking in mind that subject asked for removal/pruning to spark original AfD in 2008 through the proper processes and we seemed to not take her request in mind, when it should have been done, not questioned for her reasons and ignored by those who voiced in the AfD. Nate • (chatter) 07:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 27 February 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 Deleted per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{Talk to me} 16:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kadeve[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable artist, and the only sites I could find were event sites, YouTube, Facebook, Myspace etc. Taking to AfD since it is claimed that he performs at the Hard Rock Cafe, although I don't think that is a claim to notability. The label he's signed to doesn't even have an article here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including this article, which is a recreation under a new title. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:48, 26 February 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.

(non-admin closure) The result was speedy delete. It was tagged for speedy deletion during the discussion and an uninvolved admin has already deleted the article so no point in leaving discussion open.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TTMG[edit]

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

Not a single page links here. Google:"Tony+T+Music+Group" gives only one hit: this Wikipedia article. Non-notable? Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The artist doesn't even seem to be remotely notable, let alone some record label he started.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 27 February 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. Beaucoup redirects to quantity, which does not strike me as a useful redirect target for this title, but that's an editorial decision. Sandstein 21:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boo Koo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 February 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, JohnCD (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - Found this source: Circle K Southeast Launches GazZu: Rolls out proprietary line of energy drinks with BooKoo from CSP News, but not much else. This information may be sourced from a press release by the makers of Boo Koo, though, which wouldn't make it reliable if this is the case. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:29, 21 February 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, →Σ τ c. 00:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this does end up being a delete, would this term be usable as a redirect for beaucoup (which redirects to quantity)? I only ask because "boo koo" is used as slang for the French term.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete or redirect as slang for the term beaucoup. I searched, but I couldn't find anything to show that this energy drink is notable. Other than a handful of press releases talking about them pairing up with Coke, there's literally nothing out there other than a few non-usable review sites and merchandise pages.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 alcopop. As there is no quorum, there should be no prejudice against recreation Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3sum[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 February 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, JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to alcopop. I cannot find any reliable sources for this, but it has a fair number of google hits (21,000 for "3sum alcopop -wiki") so readers may be interested in it and we should at least provide them with a redirect. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:12, 21 February 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, →Σ τ c. 00:16, 26 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Narayana Swamy[edit]

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

Has a couple secondary sources, but doesn't seem notable as the sources are trivial in coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is a pretty famous Indian bureaucrat, and also an accomplished author. He has won the Kerala Sahitya Akademi award - the highest literary award given by the state of Kerala - for one of his works. This article might use a few more sources - but some of the sources provided (like The Hindu and The Indian Express articles) do have deep enough coverage of Swamy. Aurorion (talk) 15:45, 13 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.136.137 (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:POLITICIAN as he holds a major provincial-wide office. Here are some additional sources if you are not convinced: [25] [26].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Half a dozen articles about him in national newspapers does provide sufficient evidence for notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: So many independent newspapers publishing about him. Worth keeping. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a cleanup not deletion. There are multiple articles discussing him in national dailies, such as [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], and [32]. Salih (talk) 15:41, 6 March 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 two "merge" opinions make no argument, and the content is not referenced to reliable sources, so it can't be readily merged. Sandstein 21:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snegopady[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. No charts, no cover versions by multiple notable artists, no awards. Only source is a YouTube video. This was previously deleted, and this recreation didn't address any of the reasons the original was created. I considered speedying on that basis alone, but decided to take it to AFD instead. —Kww(talk) 00:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 19 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vesyolye Ulybki.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSONGS and I'm doubtful of whether Vesyolye Ulybki (the parent album) has sufficient independent notability to warrant an article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vesyolye Ulybki. Tylko (talk) 20:45, 8 March 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) B music ian 03:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Miki[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable comic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep One of the most famous adventure comics in Italian history, translated in many languages and with a good success, particularly in France. It's understandable why the nominator didn't found sources, as the correct name is "Capitan Miki" and not the English translation "Captain". Fixing the name we can find 557 books sources, including some significant mentions in novels, and even 59 Google archive news sources. Cavarrone (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:27, 23 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunately, we have very few English-language sources for this comic so it is understandable why someone might assume it isn't notable, but the mentions in Italian sources indicate this series was a staple of mid-20th century Italian comics.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strange AfD. The article has been translated/created in seven Wikipedia sister projects already. Seems fair to me. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 14:36, 27 February 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. No quorum, so a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best Flight[edit]

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

Does not suggest notability or qualify under WP:NMUSIC JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Independent notability not established, insufficient verifiable info for a decent article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:14, 3 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Step (Meg album)[edit]

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

Does not suggest notability or qualify under WP:NMUSIC JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Am I missing something here? This is a top 10 album. St Anselm (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:NSONGS. Cavarrone (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Top 10 Japanese album from a popular Japanese artist.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to Meg (singer) - WP:NSONGS (as mentioned above) states "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and there doesn't seem to be. (for "song" replace "album"). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NSONGS is for songs though, not albums! In any event, my keep above, to clarify is in accorance with my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Room Girl, "My suggestion for Meg is that we keep the articles on her full-length albums because most if not all are independently notable, and redirect the "singles" articles to their proper albums. This would be best way to organize the coverage of this popular japanese artist. Otherwise we are going to end up with a nonsensical hodgepodge of articles." I will clean up the album articles and redirect all the singles if we can go that way.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally believe that independent notability has been established for any of Meg's albums. They've clearly been successful and have received WP:ROUTINE coverage as a result but that's not enough for an independent article. Any viable sourced info should be merged into Meg's bio (which is Start class) - it is better to have one good article than a poor article and 20 zero-quality offshoots. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:19, 4 March 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 Merged to Meg (singer). Sandstein 21:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaberry[edit]

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

Does not suggest notability or qualify under WP:NMUSIC JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure about this one, if the artist is notable wouldn't the article be worth keeping? Sources indicating notability might well exist for an independently notable artist. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:15, 24 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Meg (singer)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. No in-depth coverage to indicate notability, and reaching only No. 139 in the charts pretty much confirms the lack of notability. --DAJF (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Merge per DAJF's rationale. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Our licence does not allow merging without preserving the history, so delete/merge is not a possible outcome. Merging and then redirecting is possible. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification I didn't mean both and I'd tend to assume DAJF didn't either. I've altered my !vote so nobody else misunderstands. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect and comment - I merged the article and redirect to it's namesake. See edit here smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 14:50, 9 March 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 Kibwezi#Education. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kibwezi Educational Centre[edit]

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

No references or sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 09:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kibwezi#Education. Vocational centres, unlike high schools and degree-awarding institutions, as not automatically notable but the key content would enhance the target. See also WP:BEFORE. TerriersFan (talk) 14:39, 22 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Although the Article does not give online references it may be a case of wp:BIAS . I propose merging the article to the main article of its district with a redirection to the subsection----Ðℬig XЯaɣ 11:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per the chap who likes little doggies. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:12, 28 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shyena[edit]

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

The article content has been copied to Defence Research and Development Organisation#Torpedoes. This article adds nothing new and the subject of the article is not notable. Anir1uph (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After doing a bit of research on the topic, I don't think the article on Shyena can be expanded enough to include more detail than the DRDO article does. Right now the only source cited resolved to a dead link; other things I've read indicate this is a very experimental project, and thus not a lot of encyclopedic content can be found to build an article. Open to being convinced otherwise. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added some references and sections. The scope of the article is very short because officially the missile has not yet been deployed so a lot of details are still under wraps. But yes, the torpedo has been mentioned a lot Wikishagnik (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Defence Research and Development Organisation#Torpedoes, no prejudice to recreation if more WP:Reliable Sources and details appear. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess enough new material and sources have been added (thanks to Wikishagnik) to keep the article. Anir1uph (talk) 01:27, 27 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse scandal in the Sisters of Mercy[edit]

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

I'm following up on concerns raised by an IP user [33]. In essence, there was no scandal, as the name would suggest, as there has been no coverage of any Sisters of Mercy member who has been charged with sexual abuse, except for one who was charged but subsequently found not guilty. Bilby (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify per issues raised below - my concern is that the topic is not notable, as the article has included no evidence of a wider scandal with the Sisters of Mercy as a whole, so the topic seems not to be notable in itself, but a case of synthesis. The one case raised at the moment was not part of a wider issue. I don't have any problems with individual cases being covered elsewhere (eg Nora Wall), but the question is whether or not an article grouping these is notable, or if there are sources showing a scandal relating to the group as a whole. - Bilby (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the user was not an IP address account, but Francish7 (talk · contribs). Looking at the article talk page I see that xe is not the only person to assert that this article is libellous. Interestingly, I thought that you were following on from Sexual abuse scandal in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney (AfD discussion), since they were both created by ADM (talk · contribs). Checking the article for BLP problems, I notice that several editors have already been looking at it on that basis, and have stripped out almost all of its original content before it was nominated for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. The comment was manually signed, so I just assumed an IP. I've struck and rectified that above. There were a lot of these created by ADM, but a lot were valid, so while I watchlisted them at the time due to the risk of BLP problems and removed anything I could pick up, I could only raise some here. Francish7 prompted me to look at the article again, and in truth there didn't seem enough to justify it. Or at least, enough concerns to warrant bringing it here for discussion. In the interests of disclosure, I removed a large chunk of content about a year ago due to BLP, copyvio and other concerns [34]. The version that prompted nomination is here - it has since been edited. It included the case of Nora Wall. - Bilby (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello, Francis Hannaway here - aka Francish7. I agree that the article should be deleted for the reasons you have stated. It's not really an encyclopedic subject when 1) it uses the words "scandal" so easily in its title - and without any support and 2) that there is absolutely no content ... someone was convicted and then acquitted. No other details have been offered. I seem to remember a news article which suggested that the compensation was paid as a good-will gesture (I could be wrong), but there is certainly nothing specific written in the article. One more point is that the article looks like it only concerns Ireland, although someone threw in a comment about the United States. If it is only about Ireland then this should be reflected in the title.
    With so little information, the article is straying dangerously close to possible libel - and for this reason alone, should be deleted. Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 19:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note, Francish7, that problems with the title are things that don't require an administrator's deletion tool to fix. You, and every editor with an account, have all of the tools required for fixing problems with an article's title: the move tool to rename the article and the edit tool to edit the article introduction. An argument for deletion is that this page and its entire edit history cannot be renamed/refactored into a valid article. Concentrate less upon whether the title has an unnecessary word, and more on whether there's any subject to be had and written about. We focus, at AFD (and indeed in Wikipedia as a whole), on what the literature out in the world actually says. Does it cover this subject in any way? If so, how? What sources are there? Who authored them? What subjects do they address? How do they address them? After all, summarizing and systematizing the properly recorded and published knowledge of the world is what we're aiming for.
      So … is there a documented subject? Have you looked? Where did you look? What did you find? Uncle G (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the nominator or other users supporting deletion are making arguments that connect in any way to the article in question. The nominator states that there were no charges, but the sources clearly state that the order was not only charged but found guilty. If the title is a problem, deal with it by moving, not by deleting. Absent any argument for deletion, keep. (This may also be a helpful source.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the Order was never charged. An ex-member was, although I gather she was a member at the time of the alleged rape. The only other case previously covered in the article didn't result in any charges.

Anyway, I didn't word the nomination well. The main issue is that there is nothing to suggest that there was a scandal in the Sisters of Mercy per se. Instead there was an incident involving an ex-member who appears to have been falsely accused of and convicted of rape before the conviction was quashed. This is covered at Nora Wall. Otherwise, there is nothing to indicate any sot of scandal for the group as a whole. Thus the topic appears not to be notable. The soruce you indicate does raise issues, but again it isn't clear that this shows a larger scandal.

Part of the problem is that these articles were often created by synthesis, by merging isolated abuse cases in various articles into an "Abuse scandal in the ..." article, without evidence that the isolated cases relate to a larger scandal. - Bilby (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this seems to be a title issue. I've linked a source which describes cases other than the Wall one; would you be content to rename the article "Abuse in the Sisters of Mercy" or something? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a title problem, but whether these articles which pull together unrelated cases necessarily point to an issue as a whole, or if they should be regarded as synthesis and treated as individual cases. In some situations where there is evidence of internal coverups or institutional problems, or where sources discuss the Order in regard to the allegations rather than just individual members, the answer is clearly yes. In others where we are only talking about one or two allegations unrelated to the group as a whole the answer tends to be no. This is one that I think sits somewhere in the middle.

I've added the source you pointed to - that might be enough, and I'm happy if material like that warrants a keep. But at the moment we're relying on a passing statement regarding the Ryan Report and half a paragraph in a book. I'll keep digging as well, though, and see if I can dig up more that might point to a wider issue. - Bilby (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the article has established WP:GNG per sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on Roscelese's suggestion, I built up the article as best as I could using the documentaries as the basis. It doesn't take the normal form, as there were no convictions or solid evidence of coverups as found in some of the other Orders, but their very public and open apology and the evidence of mistreatment in multiple institutions seems sufficient to develop an article on the topic, so I did what I could on those lines. I'd withdraw the nom, but I'm assuming that Francis represents a delete !vote. - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The tille is "abuse", not "sexual abuse". The article is not a good one, but the order was guilty of physical abuse and poor treatment in its ophanages over decades. I am not convinced that the title is quite right, but that is certainly not a reason for Deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 21 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- either with the main article, or otherwise all order specific articles should be merged into one called something like "Abuse by order in the Catholic Church". Rí Lughaid (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - taking a definite stance here... I say it passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 2 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xie Bao[edit]

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

A proposed deletion of this article was contested with the suggestion that if this article is deleted, all other Water Margin character articles should also be deleted. I think it quite possible that some Water Margin characters meet our notability guidelines while others do not, so I recommend that these character articles be addressed on a case-by-case basis. A search for reliable, secondary sources for Xie Bao reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage, so this article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will soon be evident as to why this is a premature course of action (in the main, because you are questioning the notability of the main characters of a novel that has been read by billions upon billions of Chinese), but such is Wikipedia: the requirement of provable notability trumps linguistic systemic biases; the earnestness of superficial lots jolts the rest into counteracting foisted counterproductivity. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get someone else familiar with Chinese literature--I am not--to chime in on this? Do we have anyone who can add non-English sources if needed? Regardless, if the fictional work is notable, then the characters should probably be merged either to the work or a character list if the character spans multiple works. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Water Margin characters are up there with Robin Hood and Jesse James as archetypes of heroic outlaws. There are famously 108 of them - the nine dozen heroes - and we have summary level coverage of this at 108 Stars of Destiny. There is no place for deletion here as this is just a matter of ordinary editing - organising this material for the convenience of our readership so that they can find and read it easily. Warden (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Without a significant amount of reliable, secondary coverage of this specific character, the summary level coverage that could be included on 108 Stars of Destiny is all that Wikipedia's notability guidelines allow. Neelix (talk) 20:25, 20 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Warden's comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Dew (talk • contribs) 10:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear to me that Warden's comments have addressed the concerns raised in the nomination. Neelix (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Warden's comments are an excellent rationale: the characters are important. And even if a particular character is not notable, then there should still be a merge to a list, so deletion is inappropriate. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 8 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Olaf Estenson[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:BLP1E. Only reference is a broken link Closedmouth (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I started out thinking that may this was a hoax—it sounds pretty outlandish—but there may be some truth to it. I found a brief reference on GlobalSecurity.org, which is a reliable source. I also found many, many references that had directly copied this Wikipedia entry. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per brief reference on GlobalSecurity.org mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:21, 20 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A one sentence mention comes no where close to significant coverage, which is the case in BabbaQ's source.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not convinced at all. He was "swiftly and promptly arrested" for an attempted nuclear theft? How serious could have that attempt been? No police records and media coverage on the internet, which is very unlikely when it comes to such a terrorism act. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 14:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still feel confident that the single source is good enough to justify a keep for now too let users to have a chance to do further research. One source is better then no source. Especially as that one source confirms the articles claims.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:26, 2 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Au rythme des déluges[edit]

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

The article does not meet the notability criteria for books WP:NB Koppas (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I admit that there's a language barrier here, but even with Google translator I cannot find any articles about this book. There's just nothing out there to show that this book has any notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete The equivalent French article is also flagged for notability: [35]. That aside, while this book is mentioned in passing in a brief profile of the author, that isn't enough and this two sentence unreferenced article is serving no useful purpose. AllyD (talk) 21:40, 27 February 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 JFS (school). The result of this AfD should not be taken as an argument not to recreate if someone wishes to expand upon this biography Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Robins[edit]

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

This page is not notable (WP:BIO). Dame Robins has simply been headteacher of a school, and this is listed on that school's (JFS (school) page. The page is also an orphan, and in fact almost all information that is on the page is on the two pages that link to it. 1/2 of the article is about JFS, and this can be merged onto the JFS page. Alquixloddix (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 with a damehood. I would also point out that the second sentence of the nomination is a clear logical contradiction ("is also an orphan ... the two pages that link to it"). Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into JFS (school). Yes, she meets WP:ANYBIO #1, so I wouldn't argue for deletion. However, one para of this article gives the context of the school rather than being about her, the info actually about her is very brief, and the Google searches bring up little or no additional info, suggesting there is little likelihood of significant expansion. This article therefore meets points 2,3 & 4 of WP:Merging#Rationale. Qwfp (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into JFS (school). Agree with Qwfp, she's notable enough to be included on the school's article, but not enough to warrant her own page. QueenCake (talk) 21:08, 21 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into JFS (school), as most of this short article seems to be about the school anyway. Agricola44 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biathlon World Championships 2015[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. No significant information, other then the place. Can be move to userspace of author. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No information yet, so we have a WP:CRYSTAL case. Bzweebl (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is known that championships will be held in Kontiolahti, Finland (source - it is included in article). So I think that this article isn't CRYSTAL case. Oh yes, and it is notable :) And the number of races is known (ok, they are the same every year) --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 14:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- This most certainly is a WP:CRYSTAL case. It states that "if preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." If you want to argue that location and number of races are well documented speculation, then go ahead, but if you have a reliable third-party source that has other notable speculation, I will consider changing my vote. Bzweebl (talk) 22:34, 20 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Lugnuts (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- There is nothing notable about it yet as all we know is the location. For it to be notable it would have to pass WP:GNG, which it doesn't because there are no third party sources with significant information. Bzweebl (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And how about now (changes)? --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 15:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets crystal in that it is a notable event that is certain to take place at a defined place at a defined time. There is nothing wrong with stubs. Ravendrop 23:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Yaloe (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- It looks like I'm fighting a losing battle, but what exactly is notable about it? It certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG, which I would assume is the standard for defining notable, because its only "reliable sources" that are not "independent of the subject" appear to be about its existence, time, and location, which does not seem to be "significant coverage." As previously stated, "future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place," which I do not believe it is. Bzweebl (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the difference is in how you are reading notable in the sentence: "future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place,". The way that I read it, and the way I think it is being read by the other keep voters is that the event as a whole (in this case the Biathlon World Championships) and not the specific event (in this case the 2015 edition of said championships) are notable. So because the Biathlon World Championships are notable (which, I'm assuming you agree to based on your above arguments) every edition that has verifiable info as to where it is going to take place is thus deemed to be inherently notable. Additionally, the very fact that it has already won the right to host is proof in of itself that preperation for the event (and not just speculation) is already underway. These are major events, and they take years to plan and execute. I hope this help explains, at the very least mine, reasoning. Ravendrop 19:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- I guess I am saying that I would read both the initial "events" and the word "event" as the Biathlon World Championships 2015, a position which I maintain, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. However, I do have concern that although you state that we can assume preparation has begun for the event, the article neither indicates that nor brings any sources discussing any current preparation, although it may be true. Additionally, you did not express why the fact that "these are major events and they take years to plan and execute" is an argument for notability, and I was unable to decipher what policy this was based on so an explanation would be great. Thank you. Bzweebl (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A real dumb decision to nominate for deletion. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 18:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you keep your PAs at home, please? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable event and there is plenty information about it. No obvious reason for deletion. --GreenZeb (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- Can you bring the information you're talking about to help the article please? Right now all the article has is the location and events with some sentences on the decision of the location, and the articles cited don't have much more, so it would be good if you brought some more sources. Bzweebl (talk) 00:07, 2 March 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. Sandstein 21:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quesnay de Beaurepaire[edit]

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

Nicely sourced, but the article fails to tell what makes him notable. A failed project is no reason for notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I'm neutral on the article (some of the sources are a bit...questionable), I would like to point out that notability is not temporary, the fact his project failed isn't a failure of notability. The question is was the project notable - I'm leaning torwards "it was", but would like to see evidence of it being the first notable university of its sort in Virginia/the U.S. (was it?) before coming down on one side of the argument or the other. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - failure does not make something not notable, otherwise, remove the Bay of Pigs wiki, or Scott's expedition to the Antarctic, etc. I believe this wiki is interesting and should not be deleted for the following reasons. 1. Example of T. Jefferson's endeavors regarding education. 2. Early post-War of Independence cooperation between France and USA. 3. A remarkable example of a French Royal Officer fighting with the American Revolutionary Army who extended his involvement in America to cultural and educational purposes. 4. The De Beaurepaire family in France ruptured not long after this period - with one side supporting the Royal Family and the other side being major supporters of the French Revolution (one family member was a key protagonist in the National Assembly debate for the execution of Louis XVI). One of the very under-reported causes of the French Revolution was the return of officers and men from America who had experienced its liberte, egalite et fraternite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.49.115 (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make the keeping, or not keeping, of this article more or less likely. Also, WP:ITSINTERESTING usually isn't a valid reason to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The citation links require membership of JSTOR, however if you go to the JSTOR website (www.Jstor.org) and use the search function, it allows one to read the extracts. Otherwise, sign up to JSTOR and read the entire material (it's free). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.49.115 (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From Wikipedia's deletion guidelines: "Delete: Non-notable subject. Article has no references, and I can't find any coverage of the subject. The lone external link is subject's own site". There are 12 external sources... How is that not notable? KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.49.115 (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that you are identical with WBeau, but forgot to log in. Unfortunately, shouting and roaring does not help to make a subject notable. What will help is translating your twelve source in an article, instead of the present one sentence. Did he do anything more then co-found that institute? Can you write an article about the "Academy of Science & Arts" and proof that it is notable? That would be a major help to the current notability issue. And please sign your edits on talkpages with four tildes (~~~~). These tildes will automagically be replaced by your name, date and time. Thanks in advance. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, forgot to log in. Thanks. I paid for the GBooks Hits.. Will summarise and upload the content this week. Thanks Wbeau (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Unfortunately, while there are plenty of GBooks hits, most of them seem only to be visible as snippets, if that - it is therefore difficult to judge the depth (and often the reliability) of coverage they give to the subject. However, this encyclopedia entry (in French) gives a detailed account of Quesnoy de Beaurepaire's time in America, which agrees with (and puts in context) the various glimpses one gets from other snippets, and mentions other potential sources. The picture one gets is of a career of ambitious (and repeatedly more ambitious) failures - in Philadelphia and New York before Richmond - but the Academy of Sciences and Fine Arts, at least, does seem to have been a notable failure, involving (if rather peripherally) not only Americans like Jefferson and Franklin but also most of the leading French scientists and artists of the day. Finally, assuming the article is kept, it should really be renamed to Alexandre-Marie Quesnay de Beaurepaire - there were, at least, two late 19th century Quesnay de Beaurepaires, Jules (a prominent legal official involved in the Dreyfus affair and probably a descendant of Alexandre-Marie) and Alfred (an artist who illustrated some of Jules Verne's novels). PWilkinson (talk) 00:48, 22 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nearest article on the French Wikipedia appears to be Jules Quesnay de Beaurepaire. -- Trevj (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent source-search from PWilkinson. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . People are notable usually when they succeed in doing something, but that isn't necessarily the case.
This is especially true in historical terms, where first attempts that do not quite succeed have historical importance and are appropriate for an encyclopedia . Excellent sourcing, also. What we need now is an article on the United States Academy of Science & Arts DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the French encyclopedia article. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 18:49, 9 March 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architects' data[edit]

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

Badly written article that keeps it unclear what the importance of this book is. No independent sources and a smell of promo. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be notable considering that it seemingly sold half a million copies and that there are interwikilinks in German and Polish but still notability has to be established with reliable sources. For now: Delete. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I hope someone had better to correct and fuel this article than to delete it. I've just try to change it today. Please forgive the badly written English. I'm a Frenchman working in Japan, and I wrote this article to provide sources for non-German speaker. Sorry for the odd language. Actualy there are very few independant sources about the book. By nature! An old book, often said as a "bible", most of the google searches aim at commercial link. Would the amazing number of pirates copies available on the internet convince you? I hope to find some other reliable links, beside piracy and ads... --JeromRP (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I improved the prose and stated notability. Needs better referencing, but is certainly notable. --ELEKHH^T 20:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elekhh for the improvements. I hope more native English-speakers will support the "pros" now. --JeromRP (talk) 10:03, 21 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least in Europe, this book is the reference par excellence used by architects for authoritative numeric data needed when designing. --Lambiam 02:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:NBOOK, "suggested bases for a finding of notability [for an academic or technical book] include whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions." Cesar Pelli calls this book "invaluable" and The Architects' Journal calls the book "an invaluable reference book" (see Amazon). Numerous educational institutions list the book as required reading/reference (1, 2, 3, 4). It seems this book is influential within the field of architecture and thus it must be kept per WP:NBOOK's guidelines for academic or technical books. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 05:44, 4 March 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.