Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 July	12 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Reliable sources have been presented, which establishes notability. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lamia (Basque mythology)[edit]

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

Absolutely no reliable sources. Image on article has no source either. In order to get a Wikipedia article for itself a topic must get substantive, nontrivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. This has nothing. A web search shows mirrors of this article and the notoriously unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica. From reading the article it sounds like it deserves nothing more than a footnote on the main Lamia article or on something like Melusina or even Siren as a variant tale, but even there you would need a reliable source before you could do even that. DreamGuy (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose most of these mythology articles are really badly ref'd, I agree, but lamias are as common in Basque mythology as dwarves are in German mythology. Deletion is way over the top. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bona fide ref for the first line, it's not that the topic is hard to ref, I just don't have the time and the other editors don't seem that bothered about refs, sadly. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Google Books shows some refs, including these in full text[1][2] and more snippets. I'm not entirely sure how distinct the Basque lamia is, which influences whether it merits a separate page rather than a merge, but it clearly has some coverage in independent sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy keep. French version is a GA with 48 refs, including some in English. I've added one. Article needs a bit of work but not a candidate for deletion. Mcewan (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per Mcewan — extensive refs in fr.wiki show Lamia merits an article.—A bit iffy (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - it is being improved enough to keep. 17:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of having met WP:GNG j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Cassin[edit]

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

A Lawyer, businessperson and founder of a blog, The FCPA Blog. Blog post were published in two books. The blog and other properties are under the umbrella company Ethics 360 Media. It is a company based in Singapore. Cassin is the chairman of the company. Company owns other properties such as ethiXbase, China Compliance Digest and FCPA Database. I'm unable to find any reliable, independent references that talk anything about him. I can find references that contain quotes from him and some of these are used as references in the article. Nothing meets the requirements of GNG. Prod was contested on unknown grounds. An Hcassin is the editor of this page. Hcassin, RLcassin and an IP are the editors of the The FCPA Blog page. Bgwhite (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this page adds much to the sum of human understanding. If there is notability here, it's for his blog and books, not him. Squareanimal (talk) 12:39, 6 July 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately. Amazon, LinkedIn and Blogs are not WP:RS The Washington Post link just refers to Richard L. Cassin as a lawyer who writes for a blog--which doesn't really confer much notability on him since the subject of the Post story was on Rupert Murdoch. There really is no need for a wikipedia article on this individual. --Artene50 (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William 00:53, 12 July 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. Only strong keep argument is based on inherited notability. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Peake[edit]

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

Non-notable, could not find any sources that go into details. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. Current article would need to be fundamentally re-written to be encyclopedic: it presents fringe views with little reference to the mainstream, contrary to WP:VALID throughout it's short content. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references to Peake are mostly his own web site or third hand mentions of him. They are not coverage from WP:RS and don't prove his WP:N. --Artene50 (talk) 08:45, 22 June 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, —Hue Sat Lum 20:59, 27 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There's enough here to suggest possible notability. I advocate keep for now. Squareanimal (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep Notable according to Bruce Greyson and Ervin László, both of whom wrote forewords for him. He has a media profile here that could yield more references. K2709 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having people (especially people who have dubious notability themselves), write forewords to books doesn't indicate notability. What we have is a complete lack of reliable sources giving significant coverage to this topic (I had a look at his media profile and couldn't spot any reliable sources), thus failing WP:GNG, and failing WP:AUTHOR too. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:29, 8 July 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a biography of a living person and I can't find any evidence of any independent sources that pass WP:RS.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 18 July 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaolin Chronicles[edit]

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

This article was definitely created prematurely. The reliable sources available only indicate that Christy Hui is working on something related to Xiaolin Showdown and Tara Strong is involved. The video that was leaked was a work in progress and is noted as such. Anything that happened in it, including the title, is subject to change. I have no idea where anyone has been getting the Spring 2013 date. Even if that's the unconfirmed target date by the production team, no network has said it will be part of the schedule. Xiaolin Showdown already fully details everything we know, so merging is pointless, and since the title hasn't actually been confirmed a redirect would be inappropriate. Jay32183 (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:16, 27 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 11:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, it might be in production but being in production doesn't mean a whole lot if nobody picks it up. Basically it can be determined as a pilot with links to an existing show which isn't really proof of notability. tutterMouse (talk) 20:39, 8 July 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, probably was made prematurely, not well sourced, and kind of per WP:CRYSTAL--Chip123456 (talk) 06:42, 12 July 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pappzd[edit]

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

This website doesn't seem to meet our notability guidelines for web content. The sources in the article are either written by Pappzd, or only contain passing mentions of the magazine itself, and I couldn't find any good sources online. I note that the site was nominated for a couple of awards, but I'm not sure that these awards are "well-known and independent" per the guideline. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Notoriety based on the web site's release of a sex tape resulting in cease and desist orders does not establish significant independent coverage or recognition. Per WP:NRVE, that is only short-term interest. Being mentioned in articles about other topics does not establish Wikipedia notability. The tone of the article fails WP:PROMOTION. Author of this article is WP:SPA; only contributions are to this article. Likely WP:COI. DocTree (talk) 18:30, 8 July 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of GNG. The references are not enough to establish notability (as mentioned, they are either first party, or only passing mentions in relation only to the sex tape scandal), and I can find nothing to indicate that the awards they won are notable themselves. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 18 July 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 evidence of having met WP:GNG, no claims of notability via WP:PROF. (Note that most Who's Whos, also, are not considered reliable sources, although that depends on which publisher is being discussed.) j⚛e decker ^talk 00:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Wilfrid Peters[edit]

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

Non-notable professor; I can't turn up any sources which show that he passes WP:PROF. Almost all references are to primary sources, the only exception being a Who's Who entry for his father. Psychonaut (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- can't find enough sources to assert notability on any of the WP:PROF guidelines. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:28, 7 July 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search indicates he doesn't pass WP:PROF with no references to his work and no strong WP:RS unfortunately. --Artene50 (talk) 23:58, 11 July 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cummins Allison[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I had converted a Speedy deletion nomination into a Proposal for deletion, which was contested by the article creator with the reasoning "I think that this article demonstrates the notability of CA". I feel that the business notability criteria are not met, nor are the general criteria.

The references provided, whilst verifying the information in the article, are not sufficient to show the company's notability:

The first one is the company's own website - not independent;
Bloomsberg BusinessWeek: provides the company's own information, along with "standard announcements"
Crain's Chicago Business: confirms that the company is apparently the third most innovative in Chicago. This fails to meet the criteria for 2 reasons - firstly, it is a niche publication - it has a circulation of about 45,000 in the Chicago area, so is strictly local coverage; secondly, this would be more of a claim of notability (just...) if they were recognised in a national publication as being the 3rd most innovative company in the US or the World - but the 3rd most innovative in Chicago? Sorry, I do not feel that this shows the notability required for an entry in Wikipedia.

I also could not find suitable reliable sources which are independent of the company - they are basically either minor coverage, "standard announcements" or press releases.

In summary - while I appreciate the work put into this article by the creator, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion on this Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found nothing in the way of reliable sources that demonstrate notability and I agree with the nominator about the regional nature of what has been provided. What I found was pretty much press releases and very local mentions. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being ranked the third most innovative company in Chicago certainly seems like it should make a company notable to me; however, I understand that the publication is somewhat small. I have added a reference to the Wall Street Journal referring to CA as "the leading innovator and provider of coin and currency handling solutions." There's no doubt about the reliability of that publication. Dtm1234 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That WSJ article is just routine coverage of their press release and unhelpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are either WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unsuitable. Googling turned up nothing better. Msnicki (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Company has been in existence since 1887, employs hundreds in the United States, mostly in suburban Chicago but a few in their numerous regional offices. Hard to get information on the company from Google since they're kind of a niche business, and a privately-held company, but there is some news coverage, mostly of intellectual property cases. Thunderbunny (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How long the company has existed is not a criteria for notability, nor how many people they employ (although I would assume that if that were hypothetically to be a criteria, the number required would be in the hundreds of thousands at last, not the hundreds!). The news coverage I found was routine announcements, nothing indepth about the company itself. Some niche subjects can be notable (they generate significant coverage at reliable independent sources because of their perceived importance or significance to the source) - but unfortunately this is not one of them, from what I can see. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:43, 8 July 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company meets the GNG and WP:ORG is therefore notable as shown by this 1978 article from Computer World, this 1997 article from the Daily Herald, this 1995 article form the Boston Globe, this 1979 article form the Chicago Tribune, this 2003 interview in Manufacturing & Technology News, this 2009 article from Vending Times, this 1992 article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and on and on and on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Computer World one looks to me to be based on a press release from the company; Unfortunately I can't see the Daily Herald/Boston Globe/Chicago Tribune ones as they are behind a paywall, so I can't verify their content (hopefully others will have a paid-for subscription so can look at them); the Manufacturing & Technology News one is an interview with Bill Jones, the company's CEO - so not independent; the Vending Times one is based on a press release and/or quotes from a company representative; and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is behind a paywall. What I can see of these sources do not appear to show independent ones - not all coverage in reliable sources is necessarily independent. I am open for persuasion though. Some good research though - I had found the M&TN one, but missed the Vending Times one. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:20, 13 July 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 Return to House on Haunted Hill. NAC. Cliff Smith 04:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational Cinema[edit]

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

It appears to have made a splash when it was announced and used in Return to House on Haunted Hill. See [3] as an example of coverage. However, beyond that one blip, I have seen no coverage since. I don't see the enduring coverage to establish notability, and in fact, I cannot even find another film that uses Navigational Cinema. Whpq (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Return to House on Haunted Hill#Production where this process is already mentioned and sourced. Being a one-of for the last 5 years does not give notability enough for a separate article, but as a production process sourcable as being used in the aforementioned film, we can at least send readers to the one place where it is reasonable that it be spoken of in context to the film in which it was used. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:02, 6 July 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many years must a stub remain a stub / Before we conclude that it's not going anywhere? —Tamfang (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as it takes. We have lots of notable stubs that simply await attention, and sometimes it does take a while. Personally, I do not go seeking them out, and only improve those with potential that get sent to AFD due to impatience (See WP:DEADLINE, WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT)... and I have over 50 DYKs resulting from expansion of stubby articles. However, this should have been boldly redirected and sent to AFD only if such was contested. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn - Jiminey Crickets! How did this one drop off my watchlist? I agree with MQS's recommendation of a redirect and am withdrawing the nomination. My apologies for not spotting this earlier and causing the AFD to get relisted. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 12 July 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of landmarks[edit]

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

"Landmark" is a vague term, leading to a potentially infinitely long list. This article is really just a collection of random places. It is a mess, and I don't think it could be improved unless a rigorous definition of "landmark" is given, and I doubt if this can be done properly. I don't see how something of such a wide, yet vague, scope benefits Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It shouldn't be on wikipedia, makes little to no sense. JMK (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly un-maintable - or would amount to multi-Mbyte page without heavy subjective editing. Category:Landmarks and subcats, and more specific regional lists should be replacements. Just too big in scope.Oranjblud (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect Duplicate of Lists of tourist attractions which is subcategorised. (I don't know if anyone can really be bothered merging it to all the sublists of tourist attractions, so I'd also support a redirect without merge.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many landmarks are not tourist attractions and many tourist attractions are not landmarks. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article (which I trust you have read) says "In American English it (landmark) is the main term used to designate places that might be of interest to tourists due to notable physical features or historical significance". I agree that many tourist attractions are not landmarks, but landmarks in this sense are tourist attractions. This is plainly a list of landmarks in the sense of things appealing to tourists, not in the sense of things used to navigate. The first entry is the Ross Ice Shelf - is it used to navigate? No. Is it visited by cruise ships? Yes[4]. The list of man-made landmarks is even more obviously a list of tourist atractions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose content was merged from this edit history into landmark in 2009. Our copyright licenses require that the prior edit history not be deleted. Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, what do you mean. Wikipedia doesn't have a "copyright licence" because it uses Creative Commons. And where does this requirement to retain all prior edit history come from? In any case, no history is ever properly deleted - I think it will still be accessible to admins. Bazonka (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons (or, more particularly, CC-BY-SA) is a copyright licence, and it requires that authors be identified publicly, not only to English Wikipedia admins. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand where you're coming from now, although I feel that that particular requirement of the licence is unenforceable and so does not warrant this level of concern. Anyway, a redirect rather than a full deletion should be adequate, and would retain the page history (not that anyone is likely to ever look at it). Bazonka (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about this issue at WT:DEL#Creative Commons licence prevents deletion of certain articles? Bazonka (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a larger issue on this point on attribution, but specifically here, the solution is simple: maintain this as a redirect to landmark. "List of landmarks" is by all means a searchable term, so maintaining it as a redirect retains the edit history. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The license does not require the original edit history to be preserved, it only requires a list of contributors to be given. This is why, for example, we do not need to include the edit history in a generated PDF. I have added the list of contributors to the talk page of Landmark, which seems to be the usual place for it. That resolves any copyright issue with the copied text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and then split to new articles by continent – This would solve the matter of the article's lengthiness per WP:SIZE, and would WP:PRESERVE the verifiable information in the encyclopedia. I've added some information in the article's lead about landmarks to clarify inclusion criteria for the list. The article was created in June 2004 and actually appears to be well-maintained. Also, the information is verifiable and the article currently has 238 inline citations from reliable sources such as the Unesco World Heritage Centre. Blanket deletion of this article and all of the work that has gone into it would be quite drastic, and would be a detriment to the encyclopedia, rather than an improvement. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and turn into a disambiguation of some kind... - then split by country or continent or something like that.. I'm not fussy. This article is a total mess though.. that should be attended to as well. Have we even decided what a landmark is yet?--Coin945 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any policy based reason for keeping? Secret ^account 02:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying, if we can define "landmark", then the article should be able to kept - cos there will only be a finite amount of entries in this and any split-off article. Staying the vague term it is (as it is used in the article atm), then I'd vote delete. It depends on how competent we are at finding a concrete definition for this term. But I have faith, so that's why I voted keep.--Coin945 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is too broad to be a useful list. It is not a list of landmarks in a specific place or a specific type of landmark. If all the landmarks in the world are listed, it would not meet the purposes of a list by providing information or aiding navigation, but would be so long and disorganized that no one would bother to look. Dew Kane (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A global or continental list of landmarks would have near-infinite length. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. G. C. Hood (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not split or disambiguation. Landmark is such a vague term it violates our policies in original research, and neutral point of view. Secret ^account 02:32, 18 July 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Nicole[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. I saw some user generated websites mentioning that she got a nomination for the 2012 AVN Awards (and again it's just one nomination). But according to the official list I couldn't find her name. I'll be happy to revoke the AfD if some other information is found on the issue. — westeros91 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Lacks non-trivial RS coverage to pass WP:GNG. Lacks notable awards or nominations to pass WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k. Fails GNG and PORNBIO (even in its old form). Cavarrone (talk) 17:30, 14 July 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Delete - The following WP:CRUFTy articles are nominated for deletion because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not a diary, Wikipedia does not synthesise material to advance a position, Wikipedia is not a blog for television fanatics and (perhaps most importantly) Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. As with bus timetables and weather reports, TV schedules do not belong on Wikipedia. SplashScreen (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated articles[edit]

1960–1961	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1961–1962	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1962–1963	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1963–1964	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1964–1965	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1965–1966	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1966–1967	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1967–1968	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1968–1969	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1969–1970	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1970–1971	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1971–1972	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1972–1973	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1973–1974	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1974–1975	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1975–1976	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1976–1977	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1977–1978	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1978–1979	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1979–1980	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1980–1981	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1981–1982	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1982–1983	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1983–1984	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1984–1985	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1985–1986	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1986–1987	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1987–1988	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1988–1989	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1989–1990	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1990–1991	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1991–1992	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1992–1993	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1993–1994	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1994–1995	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1995–1996	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1996–1997	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1997–1998	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1998–1999	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1999–2000	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
2000–2001	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
2001–2002	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
2002–2003	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
2003–2004	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
2004–2005	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
2005–2006	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
2006–2007	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
2007–2008	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
2008–2009	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
2009–2010	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
2010–2011	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
2011–2012	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
2012–2013	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night	Saturday Morning
1946–1947	Prime Time
1947–1948	Prime Time	Weekday
1948–1949	Prime Time	Weekday
1949–1950	Prime Time	Weekday
1950–1951	Prime Time	Weekday
1951–1952	Prime Time	Weekday
1952–1953	Prime Time	Weekday
1953–1954	Prime Time	Weekday
1954–1955	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night
1955–1956	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night
1956-1957	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night
1957–1958	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night
1958–1959	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night
1959–1960	Prime Time	Weekday	Late Night

and Lists of United States network television schedules. SplashScreen (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion[edit]

Keep Per WP:NOT, "For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. These are "historically important programming lists and schedules." They are notable as shown by having multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage, or at least the prime time schedules are easily found to have significant coverage in books, magazines. They are a useful organizational tool with respect to the articles about the individual programs. No synthesis is needed to produce them. They are historic information, and not an "electronic program guide" someone will use to decide what to watch tonight. It is not realistic to compare a national prime time TV schedule with a weather report for one day, or with a bus schedule. I do not see how they are a "blog" as the nominator asserts, nor are they a "diary." They are not "indiscriminate." The nominator's complaint that they are "crufty" smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Edison (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those "historically important programming lists and schedules" are things like Animation Domination, not these indiscriminate lists. "It is not realistic to compare a national prime time TV schedule with a weather report for one day, or with a bus schedule" - why? How is one more notable or important than the other? SplashScreen (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears the article creators have not been notified. Ill see if i can.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely notifying article creators to an AfD of this scale violates WP:CANVASS as it'd swing the result in an extremely disproportionate way? It is, after all, not necessary and only recommended. I'd suggest (for example) only notifying editors who have created 10 or more of these articles. Potentially notifying 100+ editors could seriously distort the outcome of the AfD. SplashScreen (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Id say not notifying them when nominating on this scale could be seen as disruptive to prove a point especially when the nomination is sketchy, I'm sure you don't mean it like that. If you feel that way then i would of suggested you only nominated a small amount to test the water but you didn't. Your nominating on an extremely large scale so not notifying them isn't good i suggest you do that at least as a common courtesy.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The nomination is sketchy" is personal opinion. Why do all of these creators need to be nominated - surely the Wikipedia community can decide whether to keep/delete these articles for themselves without the (most probably) biased influence of the tens of people who created the articles. Why should I have nominated just a few when I feel they ALL foul foul of the policies? Whilst nominating one creator is constructive, nominating loads of them is not and skews the AfD in one direction. SplashScreen (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is sketchy other than you having a personal distaste of these articles. I don't care for them eithier but i fully agree with the comments above. They should be notified as even a basic common courtesy. There is a thing of testing the water you will have seen there has already been a discussion previously equally would you have even let one editor know if i hadn't brought this up. Oh and stop posting to my talk page no need to do so as replying here.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You assuming bad faith does not mean that you can WP:CANVASS. SplashScreen (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read that as well as your other polices above which you haven't. Advising creators that you nominated there article for Deletion is not canvasing. You haven't told any of them. Im not Campaigning or anything I'm not telling them what to do posting in a non neutral manor campaigning for votes or anything the like. Im using the standard notification template which you should of done. Lets cover that Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand. Nope they all have a connection and a reason to be notified now given most are created by the same few that is not an excessive amount either. Campaigning posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. No not doing that. Vote-stacking no. and finally Stealth canvassing no. Now there is no bad faith on my part either you advise them as the common courtesy that you should have or someone else can if you had nominated a sample at a time then there would be hardly anyone to advise.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be common courtesy, the same as done for most other articles up for deletion, to notify the creator of an article by a neutrally worded templated message. I would expect such a notification for an article I had created, and so would most active editors. It is clearly not a violation of WP:CANVASS. A stealthy process of AFD'ing these article without any such notifications would likely end up at Deletion Review, if they were in fact deleted, since the article creator might have wished to search for and add reliable sources to answer complaints about a lack of references, or to otherwise improve the article. The encyclopedia benefits when article creators are given that opportunity. Edison (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Essentially for the exact same reason as Edison. Mass nomination and reasoning isn't clear so does feel like it WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Articles are sourced and don't seem to fully meet his points if at all. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"reasoning isn't clear" - I'm sorry to be rude, but can't you read? SplashScreen (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im not going to reply to you anymore. You are being rude and not following good practice in anyway shape or form. Read Edisons reply and mine other than you don't like it don't really meet those points adequately. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the articles are so wonderfully sourced, how come some of them have been tagged for 5 years? SplashScreen (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rather than the rest of us having to click through the 246 or so articles you mass-nominated, please identify the ones "tagged for 5 years" that you are referring to. Then it would be an interesting exercise to look for reliable sources with significant coverage. I do not view simple TV Guide listings of what happens or who guest stars on a particular night as sufficient, and I look for commentary about the schedule as such. In similar deletion discussions in the past, I have found books, magazine articles, and columns by New York Times TV critics and major news magazines discussing the choices made in setting up schedules (Up against "Ed Sullivan" in its prime? Why didn't the schedulers leave "program x" on Thursday night where it was doing ok against the other networks?) Choices as to what programs are on what night are strategic moves which have greatly influenced viewership, and the schedules, particularly prime time and late night, have gotten multiple instances of significant coverage in years I have investigated. Edison (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons well-articulated by Edison. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting the network schedule is not a good idea. Everyone here had good reasons why? 68.44.51.49 (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per historical value and, Splash, WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, not a guideline nor a policy, so you cannot nominate articles using that text as your support, since they have no weight on discussions or actions. Cheers. —Hahc 21 23:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONLYESSAY. SplashScreen (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the comments above. — Tomica (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and snowball close. all the comments listed above. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edison put it alot better (and with a much cooler head) than I could to this textbook example of a "I don't like it" nomination. The fancruft essay is not policy, and certainly doesn't involve basic industry information like a television schedule in the least, and a proper notice to frequent contributors to these articles is certainly not canvassing at all. Finally, no sense WP:BEFORE was followed at all by the nominator. Nate • (chatter) 04:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The television industry is a big part of American pop cultural history. Looking back at these schedules is helpful in learning about shows, networks, and the industry. Sure some sources could provide analysis, but the history aspect is what makes this a useful part of Wikipedia. Some people actually like to read about this topic. It's quite informative! --Mtjaws (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison's well-thought reasons. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As all of these network series are notable, these are indexes of article topics organized by a defining characteristic—the seasons and programming blocks in which they aired. Further, these network schedules are highly notable topics in their own right. Broadcast programming decisions, such as on which day to air a program, what shows lead in and out from a series on the same network, and against which series are a show competing, are a core part of the history of network television and are analyzed extensively in media criticism as a topic in and of itself. Often the very success or failure of a show will hinge upon its time slot; see Friday night death slot, for example, or look at the extensive commentary regarding NBC's decision to replace its traditional 10 pm drama block with the The Jay Leno Show every weeknight. I can't help but read such a nomination as arising from mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or perhaps simple ignorance of the topic. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Not only have the creators of the articles not been notified but it seems that some of the articles haven't been tagged, e.g. 1953–54 United States network television schedule. I was contemplating closing this myself per WP:SNOW but the logistics of unpicking this mess are beyond my experience. Warden (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of six were advised and that was by me. Apparently that is canvasing!. Some articles were still being tagged over 24 hours after the nomination.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: These are notable topics, with wide usage throughout Wikipedia. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G3, Hoax -- Selket ^Talk 00:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Beanland[edit]

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

Hoax article created by XClapham (talk · contribs). Google search demonstrates that this subject is not real. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per possible hoax. If this person is a football player, why are there no WP:RS for him? --Artene50 (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of fictional extraterrestrials. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of mammalian alien species[edit]

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

Mammalianess is a non-verifiable trait. At best this article could be renamed List of mammal-like aliens or List of alien species that appear to be mammals. Even so, none of the listed items (apart from a few with suggestive names like the Canids from Penny Arcade or Simians from Thundercats) have any indication of what mammal they're supposed to be and many (maybe most) of these species are so indistinct even within their own source material, that it barely mentions them in passing, let alone going into detail into their gestational cycle, ability to produce milk or the number of inner ear bones they've got all of which are characteristics of terrestrial mammals. The only thing, as far as I can tell, that most of these share is fur and/or an appearance resembling a mammal. Like previously stated, appearance isn't enough to justify the list as it is and it is impossible to prove any number of these are actually mammals with any sources. Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to quote the actual wikipolicy of WP:LISTN "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources... " So the article fails a sub-category of WP:N. Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I came here thinking, if alien means extraterrestrial life, this should be a null list. Unfortunately (for me) it is not and clearly the aliens must be creatures described as such in fictional works. Even if the topic were notable (and no evidence is provided that it is) there should be references for each entry confirming the author intended it to be mammalian. Without verification, the class being Mammalia woiuld likely be contentious. I shall look back here and gladly change my view if references are provided or a merge target is suggested. Oh dear, I've just seen this was split off from Lists of fictional extraterrestrials. I give up at this stage and strike my vote. Thincat (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: Yes, I had originally split the article from List of fictional extraterrestrials, you can see the version before I even began to edit it here. As you can see it was an extremely long (≈60K), difficult to navigate and followed no logical layout style. I decided to remedy both issues by creating the following articles as basic splits:

List of ancient alien species
List of aquatic alien species
List of arthropod alien species
List of exotic alien species

List of humanoid alien species
List of mammalian alien species
List of non-sentient alien species
List of parasitic alien species

List of plant and fungi alien species
List of reptilian and amphibian alien species
List of robotic alien species
List of intergalactic communities

Then redirected List of fictional extraterrestrials to Lists of fictional extraterrestrials and added the following (related) articles which are similar but are lists of characters:

List of arthropod aliens
List of exotic aliens
List of humanoid aliens

List of mammalian aliens

^^I will nominate this article depending
on the result of this discussion, it's
extremely short and will need to be merged
into this article (if it survives the AfD)

List of non-sentient aliens
List of parasitic aliens
List of reptilians and amphibian aliens
List of robotic aliens

I also added List of fictional extraterrestrials by name (A-Z), and I've been slowly going through it, which is apparently a list of /all/ extraterrestrials, characters or species, and I've been adding them to the appropriate (more-specific) articles. I've only just began this quest. It wasn't until I started doing this that I realized how ludicrous the mammalian articles actually are, and attempted PROD, which was removed. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, hot-blooded delete as just plain wrong. The definitions in Mammal state that members share a common ancestor. The less stringent mammal-like would be WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and rename~~ to something like "List of fictional mammal-like alien species". I think that most people would understand what mammal-like means, namely anything that is similar in appearance to an existing mammalian species. The main problem is that it doesn't say anywhere in the names of all these articles that they are about fictional creatures. Each and every page listed needs to be renamed to add the word "fictional" or "in fiction". CodeTheorist (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: As pointed out by Clarityfiend, renaming it mammal-like would violate WP:OR. As to the naming conventions, I was going by a discussion (I believe it was in reference to a category, possibly.) that happened and the-then-consensus was something along the lines of Adding fictional to the title of an alien species/character/category is redundant due to the fact that there are no currently known alien species. (I've seen similar opinions about things like fictional werewolves)I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it, I have no qualms about adding fictional to the titles but that's besides the point; The issue is that the article (even if it were merged back into a section of another article) still fails WP:N;WP:LISTN and WP:OR. I'm not extremely well-versed with wikipolicies, but from what I do know it currently fails all three and, as far as I can tell, there's really no way to make it pass any of them. Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of fictional extraterrestrials (per Thibbs) would be a better course of action, as you are right that the identification with mammals is somewhat problematic. The word "fictional" is essential as "alien species" can also mean Invasive species. I'd be in favour of merging all of these lists back. Then the article can be decrufted - only notable species, or species that play a significant role in notable films, books, TV series etc need to be kept. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of fictional extraterrestrials. As Thincat and Ncboy2010 suggested, there is no suggestion that the topic "mammalian alien species" is notable and we should be clear that according to WP:SAL this guideline applies equally to list articles as it does to non-list articles. I can't think of any reason to waive the guideline in this case. I applaud Ncboy2010's attempts to clean up "List of fictional extraterrestrials", but in this case I think the best approach is to impose a stricter inclusion criterion on the parent list in order to render it actually usable. WP:LSC suggests that "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia" would bring it in line with "most of the best lists on Wikipedia" - a worthy goal in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: It might be best just to revert the article back to the way it was before I began editing, establish notability criteron, reorganization, etc. Although I doubt that mammalian species will ever be able to stand alone. Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 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. WP:NOTDICT is the main argument being used for deletion/transwiki, but the argument is not convincing, mainly because (as many have pointed out) the article contains a lot of sourced content that would not be appropriate for a dictionary (like the "History" and "Examples of use in Australian culture" sections, for example). -Scottywong | speak _ 15:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloke (word)[edit]

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

There is some disagreement at Talk:Bloke#Bloke is broke. about whether Bloke (word) violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I have created this procedural nomination to determine whether Bloke (word) should be transwikied to Wiktionary (at wikt:bloke) or kept as a Wikipedia article. A previous AfD discussion occurred in April 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloke. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Cunard (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is clearly not just a dictionary definition, but goes into much detail about origins and cultural issues, as do other Wikipedia articles on other words such as dude or whilst. The article appears to have met the expectation expressed in the prior AFD that this article be expanded, and it has. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy?) Keep - There are an origin, changes, and an impact. That's it. It's not like Celebrity X on Twitter or Woody Interruptus. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose a "speedy keep". I don't think there's any harm in having a full discussion about the article to settle the dispute. Cunard (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: plenty of content beyond what would be appropriate in a dictionary, especially the Australian culture section. PamD 19:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment for those saying "plenty of content" - please check the references to find out whether the sources actually support the claims they are making. I have not reviewed them all, but the three places I checked earlier were all original research where the references had the word "bloke" in them but the analysis and commentary in the article was all the creation of the Wikipedia editor and non-existant in the source. I dont have time to do a thorough review right now.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did go through them and share your impressions -- see my comments bellow. Snow (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I finally had time to go through all the references currently in the article and in the previous incarnation of this page. All do include the word "bloke" and document its existence and meaning. Excluding the dictionaries, not one of the sources were actually about the word either as a word or as a cultural concept. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki although there is a lot of ~~concept~~ content it is, as it says in the very first sentence, "a slang term". And Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says (again, helpfully, the first sentence) "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide". There is a lot of content but that all follows on from the definition of the word and its usage as a word. I.e. it's all content suitable for a slang dictionary or usage guide, not an encyclopaedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't the same be said for any other Wikipedia article about a word? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup, which is why it is almost never allowed. There are exceptions where the meaning of an extremely important term can be highly variable in context, but note that this only happens if the word already has a (non-disambiguation) page which deals with the core subject matter. For example America/American and American (word). Snow (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Soft-redirect to Wiktionary using {{wi}}. The page is a very thorough and well-written dictionary definition. It contains definition, etymology and examples of usage, all content that one would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged dictionary. It does not, however, contain anything beyond that. The word "bloke" is used in culture but contrary to the claim above has had no significant impact on culture. There are no sources provided either in the article or Talk that identify any significant cultural impact (though the sources do confirm that the word is used). The definition is in paragraph format but that alone does not distinguish a dicdef from an encyclopedia article. The page retains only lexical content despite several attempts and more than enough time for improvement and expansion. (I can't argue to transwiki in this case because almost all the content is already on the Wiktionary page. What detail is not already there should be added by cut-and-paste with attribution. Transwiki works better for titles that Wiktionary doesn't already have.) Note that while the earlier verion of this page was kept, it was not kept as is. By consensus of the editors working on the page, the earlier dictionary definition was eventually turned into the disambiguation page now at bloke. This version was separately created but resolves none of the issues that led to the removal of the earlier dicdef content. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rossami, can you point to where the rules discuss impact on culture? Thanks. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe he is referencing WP:GNG. Like any other Wikipedia article, the subject must have analytical coverage in its sources to prove its impact and establish notability, though in this case it must also pass other more specific bars than GNG, as per discussions elsewhere on this AfD. I think -- and I don't want to put words into his mouth here but he seems to be on the same page as me -- that he is attempting to stress that the mere fact that the word exists and is used (even prominently) is not sufficient to warrant an article. This, of course, is a common issue explored in AfD and is not restricted to lexical entries. Snow (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing that says an encyclopedia article must have a discussion of an impact on culture. That is merely an example of the kind of content that would be encyclopedic as opposed to merely lexical. The section noting that examples of usage of a word in culture are merely lexical can be found at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Not size. Rossami (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - From the article:
      [The] verse collection "The Songs of a Sentimental Bloke" was published in 1915, "revealing as it did to Australians their own slang and culture of the common people."
    - Is that not an impact on culture? It's the kind of quote you would want to have in an encyclopedia article, but not in a dictionary. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That verse collection is evidence that the word "bloke" was in use in 1915 and that's all. The phrase that you appended at the end refers to the book, not to the word. The source is quite clear, reading in full "it [the book] was a roaring success (selling 66,000 copies in its first eighteen months), revealing as it did...". Words do not sell "66,000 copies". The book is notable. That does mean that each individual word used in the title is therefore encyclopedic. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Beyond evidence of use, the book helped "reveal" (make popular) slang in general in Australian culture, according to this quote. The word bloke, by way of the book title, is evidently included in this idea, it couldn't be otherwise without being nonsensical (or redundant if made explicit). Green Cardamom (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        the subject of the article, the word "bloke" did NONE of this. the series of poems did. this is yet another example of original research of applying your own personal interpretation that far exceeds the analysis or commentary in the actual sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well I'm not convinced by your argument, it is unsupported. The quote is about the verse collection's influence on Australian culture, specifically mentioning introduced/revealed "slang" contained in the collection, which obviously includes bloke, in the title of the book and the subject of this article. It's not my interpretation, there is no other way to read it. Unless you can provide an alternate reading (you mentioned it was just about the verse collection, but that ignores the part about slang). Green Cardamom (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The source says nothing about 'bloke' (except for in its mention of the name of the poetry collection). The poetry collection obviously uses 'bloke', at least in its title but I'd assume inside, but it's not a reliable source for anything.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Then what does the quote say? I'm really at a loss. It can't mean anything but that bloke (and other slang) had an influence on Australian culture through the verse collection "The Songs of a Sentimental Bloke". If there is some other way to read it please tell me because I can't see it. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The obvious interpretation of that whole sentence in its original context is that the book had an influence on Australian culture through its descriptions of slang generally (of which, "bloke" is merely one example) and its description of the "culture of the common people". Rossami (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Forgive me if I come off brusque here - I'm not intending to be, just trying to clarify this point as cleanly as possible -- but notice what you just said: "the word bloke". Not the book "Bloke" or the person "Alfred Bloke", bur rather the word. Wikipedia does not have articles for words, except in extremely rare cases where the word is of global importance and has many conflicting definitions that require delineation. Think of it like this: would "art (word)" or "finance (word)" or "earthquake (word)" have any fewer sources or any less cultural or practical relevance than "bloke (word)"? Clearly not, and yet we'd disallow these entries as well, because we are not in the business on this project of defining words or tracing their history; we concern ourselves with the real entities, phenomena and subjects that words refer to, not individual words. That is why we have millions and millions of redirects and disambig pages -- because we realize that one word may refer to multiple subjects or one subject may be referred to by multiple names, but it is not our mandate here (and indeed it counter-intuitive and impractical for an encyclopedia) to define and treat every synonym for every real world subject or concept. Wikipedia would quickly devolve into an unusable mess where no one could find the information they are looking for if we did that. Snow (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the thoughts. Not out to make an article for every word, believe the word is encyclopedic. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        But why would be my next question then. It's a slang term with an obvious and more or less uniform meaning that has had no greater impact than any one of thousands of similar slang terms (in English alone, not even factoring in other languages). Why "bloke" and not "buddy," "pal," "dude," "bro," "bud," and "mate"? And surely you can see if we let this bar be the standard, then virtually any word would qualify and we might as well not even have a "not a dictionary" policy. Snow (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        See slippery slope, logical fallacy, one doesn't lead to another, just working on bloke, sources determine articles. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So does policy: WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And yes, one actually does lead to the other here, since without consistent policies based on community consensus there is no way to proscribe any form of article. Snow (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Re: "sources determine articles" - That is the fundamental problem. Despite years of trying, no one has been able to find any sources to substantiate more than a mere dictionary definition. All the sources in the article confirm the existence of the word. But that has never been in question. What sources go beyond mere lexical content and casual references? Rossami (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki/redirect to the Wiktionary entry Clearly a lexical entry and in violation of WP:NOTDICT; bloke is simply a contextual colloquialism for "man" and we have an entry for that, obviously. Note this was also the finding of an RfC on the issue before the article was even created, but that a draft was made and inappropriately promoted to article space over the consensus. The entry has been inflated by nonsensically separating "Etymology," "Origin" and "History" into three sections, and all of the sources are either A) etymological in nature, or B) do not even address the subject matter and its relevance but rather just use the word in passing (Archetypal Aussie Still a Likable Bloke in "Dundee" or Actor the quintessential Aussie bloke). One source examines the social meaning of the word but is hardly sufficient to meet the extremely stringent standards for allowing purely lexical entries on Wikipedia; we allow this only for words like American that are of massive importance and have many highly variable and contextual meanings. Please note the distinction that I am making here between a general-purpose word and a specific non-lexical subject matter -- I would not, for example, oppose the creation of the article First Bloke, assuming a few more sources were found demonstrating its cultural relevance, as this would refer to a concrete independent subject. But the current entry is clearly lexical and belongs at Wiktionary. Etymological, semantic, or grammatical content (and sources) should be merged into the entry on that project, to the extent they are appropriate. Snow (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Australia's First Bloke already appears in an appropriate article: First_Lady#First_Gentleman, while the post is discussed here and the current occupant here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bloke (word) is also an appropriate place to discuss first bloke, assuming the article is kept, since it has to do with the word bloke. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, good catch. And, not to beat the dead horse, that all seems like appropriate content as it describes specific individuals and positions, which are appropriate to an encyclopedia, as opposed to common-usage definition of a word, which is why we have dictionaries. Snow (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It might be an appropriate place to discuss it, if there are sources that actually discuss or analyse the usage/impact of the phrase, and not simply sources that refer to him as "First Bloke". -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition, (despite handwaving unsubstantiated claims it isn't), or perhaps transwiki to Wiktionary. Edison (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bloke is a cultural expression rather than a word. There are many similar expressions in Wikipedia, such as homie, mate (colloquialism) and geezer. WWGB (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Geezer is a disambig page and the other two are arguably candidates for deletion themselves. Regardless, this article clearly violates WP:NOTDICT and labeling it a "cultural expression" and suggesting that this somehow makes it not a word (and thus not lexical entry) is a non-sequitur based on an arbitrary and artificial distinction. Snow (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's irrelevant what other articles exist, given that there's no barrier to creating articles on anything. There are examples and counterexamples for both outcomes (e.g. many such pages have previously been deleted). Which is why we instead use the rules and guidelines.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The content is for the most part dictionary content, though I appreciate the thoroughness of the coverage and do think that there is a place for some articles on words on Wikipedia. The section "Influences in Australian culture" seems strongest in this regard, but even it is a bit too much like original research from primary sources. That is, the sources use the word to describe Australian men rather than analyzing the word as an aspect of Australian culture. I don't regard this as an insuperable argument for deletion, but neither do I think I can really argue to keep the article. Cnilep (talk) 01:12, 13 July 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guruprasad Mohpatra[edit]

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

Non-notable civil servant, title appears to be below that of "city councillor" and thus fails WP:POLITICIAN. Wikilink for title does not even go to correct country (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN although I must say I'm surprised at the number of different contributors to this article given its brevity. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. INeverCry 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:19, 16 July 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. Notability has been established. Move requested at WP:RM/TR. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smitha Singh[edit]

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

Indian TV actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. (Has lacks-notability tag since 2010.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 27 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 11:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Take that erant "H" out of her first name in searches and she become sourcable in relationship to her carreer and the series Bhagyavidhaata.WP:GNG looks to be met: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] and many others that simply need to be gleaned for information from which to build this BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:17, 8 July 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, Davewild (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic passes WP:BASIC per the sources posted above by User:MichaelQSchmidt. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple significant secondary sources. Cavarrone (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the identified sources in national newspapers. Should be moved to 'Smita singh' --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the closer doesn't move it, I sure will. Poor Englifcations of Indian names almost always creates issues. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 16 July 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Inquisitor[edit]

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

Non-notable game; in addition, Wikipedia is not a place for posting game guides. (declined PROD) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The computer game section of NOTHOWTO is a list of game mechanics inexplicably, almost arbitrarily, censored at Wikipedia. To my mind, the article's current content fails in that it does NOT discuss game mechanics, and they can only be inferred from the summary of gameplay. Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like all games, it has a website. Like all games, the article is about the game, not the website. Inapplicable rule. Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB gives the notability guidelines for web content, including browser games. I've seen many such games deleted for failing WP:WEB. The {{db-web}} template even specifically includes browser games as web content deletion candidates. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. This is actually a fast-growing game featured on the major game portal Kongregate. It is developing a cult following and more players are playing this game and would like a basic overview of what it's about before playing it. The article was not meant to be a guide, but more of an overview of the game. The information posted is brief and not sufficient enough to be called a guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.215.10 (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — 182.54.215.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Fast growing" or "developing a cult following" are not notability criteria. For a game to merit an article on Wikipedia, it can't be up-and-coming, it must have already arrived. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that the article is a game guide could be fixed by rewriting it completely, but I can't find any reliable sources supporting any claim to notability. (THere is no such claim in the article at present, either.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 - article about online content with no assertion of importance. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, I was thinking "video game", which isn't one of the A7s, but a browser game would fall under online content. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an "assertion (sic)" of importance: "This game features on the major game platform Kongregate and has over 40,000 players worldwide". The assessment of browser games as "online content" with respect to A7 is peremptory and lacks good rationale, even in the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion; there are people there who believe that MMOs should be treated the same as other "online content". Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a prominent game on the major game platform Kongregate with over 40,000 players. The feedback has been positive on the article, saying how popular the article is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Dungeon_Inquisitor&ref=cta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sksksthisk (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)— Sksksthisk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*sigh* anyone care to fire up an SPI? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mirianth. Could be meatpuppets of course, but worth checking. --bonadea contributions talk 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of coverage from reliable, third party sources. Fails the WP:GNG. As others have said, Wikipedia is not a gameguide either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage, no article. Delete slowly, not speedily, however, since "assertion of importance" is a stupid unencyclopedic thing to require to be in an article, CSD A7 is archaic pre-GNG nonsense, and the whole criterion should itself be speedily deleted. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree. Rules with subjective parameters that rely on the discretion and WP:COMPETENCE of editors make no provision for editor failure. Evidence:

Amatulic's use of "assertion" (the rule states "indication of importance")

While there is no requirement to openly state importance, it must be inferred by those testing the rule. More room for failure, and sure enough, that editor believes that there is no evidence of importance. My evidence to the contrary is above; the article also states that the game "incorporates advanced technology". It leaves out the most important part, though, that the game uses natural language processing technology, as this source shows.

These errors are compounded by replication, as shown by Writ Keeper's ditto of the "online content" miscategorization and your own good faith belief that Amatulic was correct to use "assertion". Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see if you look at the article's history, the first paragraph was added after Amatulić's !vote here so there was neither an assertion nor an indication of importance at that point. That being said, now there is a (very weak) claim to importance which means that A7 probably isn't applicable. --bonadea contributions talk 07:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure why we're talking about A7 here, but regardless, linking to the WP:Competence is required essay is not as who should say a classy thing to do. That essay is for a very different context. Finally, a browser game does qualify for A7. Look at the text of the template: it specifically names browser games. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasons. No clear assertion of notability. --Artene50 (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep due to innovation in the browser game field with its use of natural language processing,(source) or failing that, Redirect to Kongregate. Do not support delete, do not support merge without sources. Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bbgsite.com has been found to be an unreliable source at WP:VG/S. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that mention the game at all, much less any that support the claim that its use of NLP is particularly significant. --bonadea contributions talk 07:24, 16 July 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal. Redirect afterwards. The non-formatted keep !votes did not provide a policy-based reason. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Faulkner[edit]

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

The notability of the person is not met. His death is notable and his murder case are notable, but not him. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination and rename to murder of Daniel Faulkner or something similar. I see no rationale to delete, since the bulk of that article concerns the murder, which the nominator agrees is notable. I suggest that the nominator withdraw this deletion nomination, and just rename the article remove the biography paragraph. No need for AFD here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Amatulic's suggestion. --Wingtipvorte^X (talk) ∅ 20:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd - please close frivolous AfD This does not really merit comment or discussion. Also renaming this to add excessive words to the article title is not useful in any way and violates article naming convention. There are quite a number of articles about people who were assassinated, murdered, involved in famous incidents, etc. which focus on the reason they are most notable. It's a slippery slope argument which can only lead to some conclusion like adding more words to the article title than are necessary to describe its topic. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 21:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd - please close frivolous AfD In complete agreement with Obotlig above. CCS81 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Murder of Daniel Faulkner per Amatulic. This is no more absurd than lots of other deletion nominations. Many articles involving the death of an individual are named for the incident rather than the person if that is the main, or only, reason for notability so I don't see how it violates any naming conventions. Slippery slope arguments are almost always logical fallicies. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal. There is no individual notability for Faulkner. There is nothing exceptional about his career that would establish that an standalone article is justified. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd - please close frivolous AfD - nonsense Afd.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal. Given that this article already exists and it was the trial more so than the murder itself that captured media attention, I think this is the better option rather than renaming to Murder of David Faulkner. Some cases are known for the victim (i.e. Matthew Shepard), but this case is better known for the perpetrator (i.e. Mumia Abu-Jamal). I don't think there is sufficient notability as a victim for an article to be named after the officer. Location (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd - please close frivolous AfD Suggest to please leave article as is. -=vyruss=- (talk) 15:11, 18 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambulance manufacturers[edit]

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

List article that serves none of the four primary purposes outlined in WP:LIST. It is nothing more than a directory of external links in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one internal link shows that all but one of these companies is not notable enough. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 17:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LINKFARM. Lugnuts (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Noteworthy subject. Note that the contents of a list do not necessarily need to be notable on their own for inclusion for a list. It's true that the list is currently a WP:LINKFARM, but AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Debatable whether this is a noteworthy subject; your opinion is noted. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Cleaning up to comply with that would result in a blank page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't mean a list of manufacturers of X cannot be included. See List of automobile manufacturers, for instance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 15 July 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.

This article is a candidate for reinstatement and is being considered for such.--173.49.56.43 (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to University of Redlands. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Sigma Sigma[edit]

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

Non-notable club with only 1 chapter nationwide. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG standards of notability. Insufficient third party sources to establish notability GrapedApe (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I would really like to save this article about a 100-year-old fraternity, but I could not find any significant sourcing at Google News or Google Books, so it fails WP:ORG. If someone can find such sourcing I will change my !vote. As an alternative to deletion, the article could be redirected to University of Redlands#Greek life. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, There is some verifiable content, and what content that is supported by reliable sources should be kept somewhere, even if in a brief summary style is used; therefore I would support a merge of verified content and redirect as stated by MelanieN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 28 June 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This should be saved in one form or fashion. I would suggest that a page be created as a list of local fraternities or something similar. Otherwise, there would be no place for local fraternities in Wikipedia with the possible exception of secret societies like the Seven Society. While this particular fraternity "might" not meet the notability category on its own merit, collectively local fraternities (not chapters of major fraternities) are notable. --Enos733 (talk) 05:31, 8 July 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, BusterD (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The consensus looks to be that some of this information should be retained but there is nowhere to keep it. So, it transpires that WP:N is not giving correct guidance for this particular article (it only claims to be a guide). Hence contentious unverfiable material should be removed and whatever is left should be kept. One day (there is no hurry) it might be merged into a suitable broader article. Thincat (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a perfectly good place at University of Redlands#Greek life, which s appropriate because that's the only location where this club exists.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent. If that is so, why are you seeking to have this article deleted rather than merging it there yourself? Thincat (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it's not a notable topic for inclusion (see my nomination). Just because I suggested a merge-to location if a merge is the result of the AFD doesn't mean that I agree with a merger.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see some history here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:44, 14 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of astronomy websites[edit]

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

This article seems to describe a fairly arbitrary collection of space/astronomy websites, with no stated inclusion or notability criteria. I can't see it being of encyclopaedic value, and Wikipedia is not a directory. W. D. Graham 14:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn for now to let the other discussion play out. --W. D. Graham 16:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not withdraw the nomination. I would like this AfD to come to a conclusion, so the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination) will be aware of what his/her options are. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, correction. There is an inclusion criteria, which is that they have Wikipedia articles, so it is a self-reference as well. --W. D. Graham 14:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid states: "This guideline is about self-references and specifies which types of self-references should be avoided and which kinds are acceptable." I don't think this list is an unacceptable kind of self-reference; there is precedent for lists like this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. While Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid is inapplicable, WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE may prove fatal to this article. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination, that paid no heed to the edit summary of the creating edit, will only serve to confuse and mess things up. This article was created as a result of discussions of alternatives to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination), a discussion that is still active. Its fate is strongly linked to that discussion and should be decided there. Simply bring this article under the umbrella of the AFD discussion that it is already being discussed in. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to decide whether this list conforms to policy (or can be made to conform to policy) first before a final decision is reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was not aware of the previous discussion. --W. D. Graham 16:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination), I wrote:
I created the list by relying on Lists of websites and failed to take into consideration whether it violated WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is meant to complement Category:Astronomy websites by including both notable astronomy websites and non-notable astronomy websites that have received tangential coverage in reliable sources. I think this is a good compromise position for this AfD: It dissuades users from bombarding the article with poor sources, trivia, and fluff to create a façade of notability. Instead, at List of astronomy websites, the non-encyclopedic information can be removed in favor of retaining only a short encyclopedic summary of the website. Please do not withdraw that nomination. List articles are not my area of expertise, so perhaps an AfD can attract experienced users to refine the inclusion criteria of List of astronomy websites so that it does not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, if, at the end of seven days, the list cannot be improved to satisfy the WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE policies, then it can be deleted and the discussion at this AfD can focus solely on whether Universe Today can be kept or deleted.
I request that this AfD be relisted by the reviewing administrator after seven days have elapsed, so that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of astronomy websites can come to a conclusion before a decision is made here.
I would like this article to be kept so the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline-failing Universe Today can be merged into it. However, AfD positions should be motivated not by personal opinion but by policy-based arguments. Because I have little experience with regard to list articles, I will abstain from formally supporting retention but hope that more experienced editors can revise this article so it does not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm involved in policing List of open source Android applications which says "This is an incomplete list of notable applications (apps) that run on ..." Phrasing it in terms of notability rather than things which have wikipedia pages seems better to me. A number of the apps on List of open source Android applications have had articles created apparently just to get on the list. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with confining the list to notable websites is that Universe Today would be excluded from the list. The guideline at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of companies and organizations states:
A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group.
Is it possible to refine the list's criteria to permit non-notable websites but not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Cunard (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is with no notability threshold, the list could and indeed should include literally every website about astronomy. A quick Google search returns about 34 million results... If this list is kept, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. --W. D. Graham 00:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The list could include only astronomy websites that have received coverage in reliable sources (though not necessarily nontrivial coverage that establishes notability). Cunard (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then conform to WP:LIST. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A potentially huge, huge list. It could be restricted a bit by limiting the content to professional organizations and astronomy association sites. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would this criteria include Universe Today? How would such a restructuring be accomplished? (Would a rename be necessary?) Cunard (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably a discussion for the article talk page. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - This list was created as a result of discussion at the Universe today AfD linked above, but it is not unreasonable to keep this list regardless of the outcome at that AfD. Common sense suggests that a list should only be deleted if the unlimited scope problem is unfixable, which is not the case here. All that is needed is a consensus on the article talk page about what the inclusion criteria should be, perhaps an Alexa ranking since it is a list of web sites. VQuakr (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but provide clear criteria which allow a page to be entered on here, and make it look more like a list. Do not write extremely long sections on each website listed; those belong in dedicated articles, not a list amalgamating all of them. The most that should be there are brief, verifiable comments. This is not Extremely detailed characterizations of astronomy websites containing information which makes it seem like ten articles combined into one.Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 02:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why is The Planetary Society listed in the list article? It's not a website, it's an NGO, hell it has its own interplanetary probes. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. I've removed The Planetary Society from the list. Cunard (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is AuroraMAX listed? It's not a Wikipedia article about a website. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 17 July 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 Revolt (The Dreams album). Deleted before redirecting The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt (song)[edit]

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

No shown notability in article. ⇒T A P 17:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:54, 4 July 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A9. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Revolt (The Dreams album), as was done with articles on the band's other songs, Under The Sun (The Dreams song) and The Optimist (The Dreams Song). A9 does not apply as the band's article exists. Gongshow ^Talk 22:05, 11 July 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Succar[edit]

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

Recreated after a speedy delete, still no sources showing notability. I can find plenty of YouTube, Flickr, minor mentions, etc Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:10, 28 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:23, 4 July 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's another Samir Succar, a researcher at Princeton. There's some sources about him (NYtimes, NYtimes 2, NYtimes 3). But this Samir Succar? Can't find any sources about him, so I have to conclude that this entry fails WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:41, 18 July 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) 18:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somnia Anesthesia Services[edit]

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

I think the SPA who wrote this has not provided sufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for reliable non-primary sources, I could not find any. Hence, delete. Roodog2k (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 27 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:24, 4 July 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree; no reliable sources and no real notability. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, does not meet WP:FIRM. Google News Archive finds only press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 12 July 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) 18:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ActivePath[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The sources in the article are: onlinebankingreport - just a short abstract of a paid-subscription article; finance.yahoo.com - press release; company's own website; netbanker - is a blog; Reuters - yet another press release. Thus, there's absolutely nothing to confirm this company's or its products' notability. Max Semenik (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. I was thinking that the "Best of Web" award was a credible claim to notability when I edited the article before, but looking more closely at the "award" it appears to be just a mention in a report which isn't available without a subscription, so not really an award at all. I haven't found any sources that confirm notability for the company. --bonadea contributions talk 14:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 27 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:22, 4 July 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing to meet the standards of notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of notability. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:49, 18 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8 Flavahz[edit]

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

The article's only grounds of notability is the dance group's appearance on America's Best Dance Crew, from which they were crowned the runner-up (WP:ONEEVENT). It seems there may be a couple of individual achievements between a few of the members (which, unfortunately, don't have any references to verify them), but collectively as a group, 8 Flavahz haven't done anything note-worthy besides ABDC. Most of the information on the page about their appearance on the show can already be found at America's Best Dance Crew (season 7). It is written from a fan's point of view (WP:FAN) and lacks sufficient third-party references (WP:THIRDPARTY). WANI ^♪♫♪ 17:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finally took a look at the link to the 8 Flavahz website, but it is still under construction. I had assumed the author wrote the article's introductory paragraph based on information from the website, so it appears to be made entirely of original research (WP:OR). WANI ^♪♫♪ 22:30, 26 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 27 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 11:01, 4 July 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The crew is notable for more than just ABDC as the members have appeared in music videos, movies, and other television performances and the author has provided citations for almost all of these events. I guess references were added after this article was nominated for deletion. References are also provided for the "history" section which discusses how the group formed before appearing on America's Best Dance Crew. This happened namely through World of Dance which, from my understanding, is a fairly large scale street dance competition. After reviewing the references, I feel that they meet the grounds of establishing the crew's notability as outlined in WP:GNG. They are all secondary sources so they meet WP:THIRDPARTY as well. I just fact checked all the refs. The CollectiveUth ref wasn't working for me and the Hollywood Reporter ref doesn't prove that Charlize was in Rage Crew and/or present during that performance. However, the other 11 citations were working and they did validate the sentences that they supported. Aside from that, the article's tone is appropriate since it doesn't sound like an advertisement and it isn't unambiguously promotional. My only qualms are the "Flavah" column in the members' table as I view this as pure WP:FANCRUFT and the "dance competitions" category tag which is inappropriate since 8 Flavahs is not a competition but a dance crew that has participated in competitions. However, these are easily rememdied by simply removing them. For all these reasons, I vote "keep". 132.3.17.68 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, I nominated this article almost four weeks ago. Back then, it was little more then...well, what I explained up in my original description above. Now that the article has developed, and notability has been established beyond their appearance on America's Best Dance Crew, I am striking out my original comments and voting Keep as well. WANI ^♪♫♪ 21:59, 13 July 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Green (writer)[edit]

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

Chris Green was a technology journalist, but now works in PR. Page says he's still a journalist and links to a source that hasn't been updated for three years. This page no longer warrants its existence as the subject is of limited significance Inblogveritas (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

meh. Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Green. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chris's last article on IT PRO was written in October 2008 while the link for his articles for Computing is dead. So is his podcast for Online Publishers. I think he lacks notability to merit a wikipedia article. --Artene50 (talk) 04:25, 27 June 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:46, 4 July 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Handbags, reinstate. If the reason for deletion is broken links then surely it would be more use to remove the broken links than to delete the whole entry? May be worth noting that the AfD came from an account that was involved during previous arguments over this article -- Webgnu ^(talk) 00:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in this article are all either broken links or fail to prove notability. He doesn't seem to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Google is turning up very little, although having a common name doesn't help. If someone can provide some decent sources proving notability I'll happily change my !vote. Previous AfD didn't prove notability either, it was full of keep votes without any evidence. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:26, 12 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frontis Archive Publishing System[edit]

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

The only claim to any notability is being shortlisted for an innovation challenge. There's no evidence I can see online of significant, reliable, independent coverage about the system. Does not meet WP:GNG requirements. Sionk (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The first page of your own Google search lists only articles relating to Frontis. In addition, it wasn't just shortlisted, but then was a finalist in the innovation competition and has won four FFHS awards including three best sites. It certainly does not have as many citations as the large companies, but how many small companies do? As arguably the leading system of its type in the Genealogy domain as well as having published over 20 million records online, and used by the largest genealogy library outside the USA should count for some amount of notability surely? Johnkendall1 (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 'notability' is not based on Google hits. In any case, if you look at the first page of Google search, the results are either to the Frontis website, or pointing to HTML code in the header of other websites. There are no 'articles'. From what I can see, the FFHS awards went to the websites, not to Frontis. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The awarded web sites are 'powered by' Frontis - the functionality is provided by the system, it is only 'skinned' for each individual client. Online articles include
- General Frontis article
- Parish Register Transcription society article
- Society of Genealogists article
- About the pay per view site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkendall1 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More about the pay per view site Johnkendall1 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

212.183.128.70 (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Family History” issue 17 August 2011 pages 58-61 have article called “Re-Visiting Families in British India.

Page 59 has the section ‘Database’ and says "Similarly to the popular commercial website, FIBIS offers a large and growing database. This is designed around the Frontis system now adopted by several other family history societies for their searchable databases. Indeed Frontis was designed initially for, and pioneered by, FIBIS, who have been using it now for several years. Its versatility permits the inclusion of data copied from a variety of sources, mostly of those available in India Office Records in the British Library. These are prepared in the form of spreadsheets, text, images and even multimedia files. Tables of data, images etc,. can be browsed throughout a hierarchal structure or searched by surname only, by full name, by subject or by source." Johnkendall1 (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another mention:
- [13] Johnkendall1 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about Frontis here. --Kvng (talk) 19:46, 18 July 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of notability. Passing mentions don't count. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your family history cited above and Kent Science Park cited in article [14] meet notability requirements. Note that the fact that notable sites have been built with the tool doesn't directly help establish notability. It does, however, give us hope that more sources will eventually emerge. --Kvng (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Southern California. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Phi Kappa[edit]

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

Non-notable club with only 1 chapter nationwide. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG standards of notability. Insufficient third party sources to establish notability. GrapedApe (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant sources; article is full of puffery. Could be redirected to University of Southern California#Traditions and student activities, although it is not mentioned there (the "Greek life" subsection does not name individual clubs). --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge What verified content is found in the article should be merged to the section mentioned by MelanieN and a redirect left in its place. If there is sufficient reliable source content to warrant a split it can be done so.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:34, 28 June 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:18, 4 July 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into its university's article.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:44, 14 July 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Epsilon Omega[edit]

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

Non-notable club with only 1 chapter nationwide. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG standards of notability. Insufficient third party sources to establish notability. GrapedApe (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although it does not appear that the single chapter Asian American fraternity does not pass WP:N & WP:ORG, as stated by the nominator, the concept of minority based fraternities is probably a notable subject within itself, and as such what content is here can be included in a List article, and a redirect left in its place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources at all; article is pretty bare bones. Could be redirected to University of Southern California#Traditions and student activities, although it is not mentioned there (the "Greek life" subsection does not name individual clubs). --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to a merger of verified content and redirect to said section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 28 June 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:17, 4 July 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't need an article for every little asian boy card play club on campusLuciferWildCat (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to strike the racist comment? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone has more luck than editors have to date in finding some significant reliable sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:18, 19 July 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainabilisation[edit]

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

Unreferenced neologism, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found no sources at all documenting this, which wasn't that surprising as it's clearly something that joeborza (talk · contribs) made up to indirectly promote his business (whose WWW page's URL was in the first revision of the article). This is not how things work, M. Borza. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard and we don't accept stuff that you've just made-up. This is an encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a new word that is hardly used anywhere. No sources, not notable yet. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Uncle G (talk · contribs); see deletion log for rationale. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Brady[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Subject has no coverage in any reliable source. What I found were self published web pages, social networking websites, etc. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 in addition to the notability problems (although the awards are probably enough importance to stave off A7, even though no notability is established). Phrases like "she is a straight talker and a fixer, never failing in her ambition to deliver on her commitments" are pretty blatant promotion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Found no reference outside self-published sources. Full of peacock terms and weasel words. This is recognised by her success in the industry - overall aim for improvement at all levels for the highest quality - she brings a new vision to each project. Search for Daily Mail Interior Design of the Year for UK award brings up nothing and the only confirmation that she has won the other award is her own website. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 15:36, 11 July 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Goh[edit]

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

This was previously deleted under both PROD and A7 as non-notable. Although I've turned up some sources (see this diff), I've yet to find anything that conclusively satisfies WP:GNG. Bringing it to AfD to get proper consensus for retention/deletion. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Yunshui 雲‍水 13:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No convincing claim to notability. It says Goh teaches people who, the article goes on to say, "Likely too new to be notable"? The existing sources do not stand up to GNG or RS. Creator has presented an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument on my talk page. There's a borderline tone of Advertisement. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respectful of policy guys, I realise some of the sources may sound like advertising and that's what I'm trying to avoid whilst still trying to provide sufficient evidence of his notability. Additionally I don't know any of his students who have achieved recognition. I am of the WT lineage (different from WC) Kittensfoot (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The only claim to notability seems to be that he holds a world record, but previous discussions have said that is insufficient for notability. There's nothing to show his books allow him to meet WP:AUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete For the same reasons as above - the Guinness record is exactly the same worth as the bat breaking discussed on the Martial Arts Project page (ie. not enough to confer notability). If there could be some attempt to support 1000s of students in multiple countries I would change my opinion. Right now its just words.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added some additional sources including his history as a bodyguard to Harrison Ford Kittensfoot (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PRODed this article in March, and while it's been improved, I still don't think he meets the notability criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 16:17, 18 July 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bolarinwa[edit]

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

Contested PROD; this player has not had significant coverage (failing WP:GNG) and he has not played in a fully-professional league (failing WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 12:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer that haven't played in a fully professional league, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:46, 16 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Carole Tyler[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. She associated with important people, but I don't see any particularly noteworthy achievement in her own right. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Carole Tyler is significant for being a notable lynchpin in the Bobby Baker call girl ring. She is mentioned in numerous books about JFK and his presidency. Among these include "Kennedy Must Be Killed" (2010), "Lyndon B. Johnson, the Kennedy Assassination, and the Transfer of Power", "Act of Treason" (2011), "Hearings, Vol.2", "Hearings 7&8", "Who's Who In the J.F.K. Assassination", 1993, Newsweek Volume 65, Time, Volumes 83-84. C'mon, this person's entry needs to be added to, but it is a noteworthy one, not someone who should be eliminated because of lack of importance!Robert (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. A classic 1E, with notability claims relying primarily on inheritence. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:37, 6 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bobby Baker which covers her involvement in the scandal and death. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment - This seems to be a trojan horse anti-Ted Kennedy attack page in intent.~~ Carrite (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This bio on Spartacus Educational references further coverage in Time, as well as very public and newsworthy taking of the 5th Amendment. There is a clique at the Reliable Sources noticeboard that despises Spartacus Educational, but I have found it to be generally accurate in the same way that Wikipedia is generally accurate and therefore a reliable source. Carrite (talk)

Although not visible in the Google Books summary, THIS LINK indicates that the book Who's Who in the JFK Assassination: An A-To-Z Encyclopedia, by Michael Bensom includes a full entry for "TYLER, NANCY CAROLE." Carrite (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a newsworthy figure, evidenced by THIS WIRE SERVICE PHOTO for sale on ebay. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear evidence that "Carole Tyler's" taking the 5th Amendment was FRONT PAGE NEWS in 1964. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clearly a public figure of the early 1960s, BLP1E deals with LIVING people. This is a historic figure about whom there are multiple, independent published sources. The piece as it stands is horrible, but that's not grounds for deletion. Passes GNG easily, as a quick Google search should indicate to anyone. Carrite (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I cited WP:1E, not WP:BLP1E. However the discussions found here have convinced me that she is indeed notable after all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 11 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayasrah[edit]

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

The article is full of hoaxes. The sources provided are not reliable and cannot be verified. Irrelevant sources were added to keep the article and prevent it from deletion. The whole purpose of the article is to promote and advertise someone family and for the purpose of personal glorification. Amb04 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 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 July 3. Snotbot t • c » 13:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing particularly significant about this clan. The only notability claimed is descent from Mohammed, which is meaningless—there are thousands of descendants of Mohammed and notability is not inherited, especially after 32 generations. Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is a bad faith from user:Amb04 which is a sockpuppet for user:banimustafa (Look here). This cause article: Bani Mustafa was nominated for AFD, and the user banimustafa thought it is me who nominated it, so he keep tracking the articles I edit and nominate them for AFD.--HF ► 20:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the user is now adding more haux to the article. Please note the fact that the majority if not all the information added the article were added by one and only one user click. He is trying to add haux about a sectarian conflicts between muslims and christians where the allged the clan played a role which is a pathaetic and poor try to gain sympathy. The clan did not exist during that time (1860)and it is impossible for the clan to exist as it goes back to a maximum of 5-6 generations. All the sources in the article are either irrelevant or they say nothing about the clan Ayasrah, or cannot be verified and some are simply fake. The user also added haux using a source which was earlier rejected in the discussion of Jerash article becuase the article copied the information edited by the user on the Arabic version of Wikipedia which makes it a circular reference (Please see Addustour article section in the discussion of Jerash article). There are tens of thousands of clans in Jordan and hundred of thousands of them in the middle east. A large proportion of these clans claims links to Mohammed (32 generations) as much as all the Arabs and the Jews claims links to Abraham, and perhaps as much as all humanity have links to Noha and Adam. I see no point of keeping this article as it lacks particlar noteability and it is full with haux and fake osurces and information. Amb04 (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above user is both the nominator and has been the subject of a sockpuppet investigation which a CheckUser found to be "likely". —Tom Morris (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are not getting it. I have left my signature above to indicate that I am the nominator of the article for AFD. The investigation you are refering to is already mentioned above and irrelevant to this AFD as no sockuppeting is used her to influnce the nomination. Can you please focus on the context of the article and the sources used! The information provided in the article are written by one person and by one person only and they are mostly hoax. The sources used in the article are irrelvant, unverifiable or even fake. Amb04 (talk) 18:45, 6 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for these reasons:

1. per WP:GNG. The sources in the article demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.

This is not right. I checked all the sources. Most of the sources are irrelivant, some are unverifiable and the rest are simply fake or invalid. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Ayasrah is notable because of these reasons:

They played a main political rule when they fought with Prince Ali the son of Fakhr-al-Din II, when he led a military campaign on the orders of his father to pursue Farroukh Sandzak Ajloun, Karak and Nablus.

These are hoax and not supported any source. During that time there was no tribe, which is called AYASRAH. I challenge you to proof otherwise. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayasrah and inhabitants of other ancient villages in Jerash region were among the founders of the modern city of Jerash in the early nineteenth century.

These hoax depends on a circular refernce which was rejected earleir. These infrmation and the source was rejiced in the discussion of the Jerash article. The user used a circular reference which copied a wikipedia article in Arabic. These information was added to the article by the user himself, and therefore was rejected earlier and found unacceptable by an arbiter (adminstrator:Boing! said Zebedee). Please check the section "Addustour article" in the discussion page of Jerash.Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name of Jerash was abandoning for the name of Ayasrah's village sakib which indicates their importance. (1)

First: This is irrelevant as the article is about your tribe which is less than 100 years old, NOT ABOUT THE VILLAGE OF SAKIB. Second: This information your atelling is nothing but Hoax. I have checked the book you used to support your argument here. The book simply does not say what you claimed. It only discusses a naming issue regarding the names used by an author who is called "Prawer". This author insisted using Crusaders names for many places including the name "Seecip". However, the book says that "Prawer" stopped using that name permanently as all other authors used either the Greek and the Roman name "Gerasa" or the current name "Jerash". The name Jerash was used by the ancient and modern Arabs, Ottomans, and also by all the westerns authors after the re-discovery of Jerash by the German Ulrich Jasper Seetzen in 1806 AD. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ayasrah received refugees from the Christians from all the Levant and they provided protection of Christians in East Jordan at that time, was the spark that sedition began in 1860 and continued for many years and completed the role of Prince Abdel Khader Aljazaery, and they declared at that time that any assault or abuse that would happen to any Christian, that would be considered an attack on the tribe. After that Christian families lived in Sakib side-by-side with Muslims.

These information are hoax and lies. In 1860 There was no tribe called Ayasrah. I challenge the creator of the article (user:Historyfeelings) to support these lies with reliable and verifiable resources. This proof my point that the article is full with hoax. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayasrah is the only family in Jordan -as well as King Abdullah II family has a clear relationship with prophet Mohammed (1)

Again, these are all hoax and unverifiable cliams which are supported by irrelevant, unverifiable sources. These claims refers to 1400 years of history and to more than 32 generations. Most of the history of tribes in the middle east is vocal, and depends on superstition and folk stories and cannot be verified. The region witnessed a long dark age which lasted about a 1000 year; this continued until the 19th-20th centurey., where books and literacy were scarce. The modern books only ocuments these vocal claims. However, these claims are completely hoax and not even supported by these types of books, which can be verified. These claims are so popular in the Middle East, so that a large proportion of the tribes make similar claims, which does not obviously make these tribes noticeable. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. The article can be found in 5 wikis.

These wikis are the creation and the interest of one person only, who is in fact the creator of this article. This is irrelvant and proof nothing. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. The article can be improved more by time, specially about the role of family during transjordan, and note that the family village: Sakib has a rich history as well.

There is no role for the family, unless you are intending to invent one. The real history of the family and its role is insignificant. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5.The nomination itself is bad faith. The above user is both the nominator and has been the subject of a sockpuppet investigation which a CheckUser found to be "likely". And the user Admit that.--HF ► 15:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user:Historyfeelings (the creator of the article) himself was involved in editwars, "bad faith" practices and accusations, vandalism and sockepuppetry. The whole purpose of the article is marketing and self promting. This is clear from the history of edits. The only contributer to the article is one person and only one person (Historyfeelings). Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It requires a good copyedit and some large chunks need to be cut out, but remember WP:MAKESTUBS! Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 17:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beacuse of the hoax mentioned above this article should be deleted. Please note that I am the one who nominated the article for deletion. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this guy Amb04 is a sockpuppet of Banimustafa (look here) he just deleted my vote while he keep duplicating his votes. I assume his nomination is a bad faith. He keeps replying on any comment with lots of lies, knowing inside himself that this maybe will make an influence on the editors. I wish if this can be solved apart from personal attitudes. thanks --HF ► 23:26, 17 July 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. Discussion for a merger can take place on the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue flight attendant incident[edit]

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

I think it might be time to re-examine this article for meeting the inclusion standards for a stand alone article. It cannot be denied that volumes of news sources exist documenting the incident, but I think a little common sense should be applied in this case. Despite all the coverage, now that time has passed, in hind-sight this was one event that has had little lasting effects on the industry or the profession. There are also some BLP concerns here. Truly, I think had he not deployed the emergency shoot (which was the tabloid-esque hook that media outlets latched onto), and simply stormed off the job in the regular way, I don't think it would've even made more than the local news, if at all. In short, this incident received attention only because of the sensational aspects of the story. I suggest perhaps merging some of the content, abridged, to: JetBlue Airways#Incidents and accidents. Note: He also has his own little asterisked section at the bottom of the notable Flight attendant list. Ditch ∝ 13:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note - (from talk page) An article on Steven Slater was deleted on 17 August 2010, following a deletion discussion. After a deletion review, an article about the incident (titled "JetBlue Flight 1052") was created using the page history from the Steven Slater article, and immediately nominated for deletion. This article was kept following the deletion discussion. The article was subsequently renamed to "JetBlue flight attendant incident." --Oakshade (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Person quits retail job, leaves via emergency exit that triggers alarm. Would that merit a Wikipedia article? Clearly no and neither should this. WP:RECENTISM and no lasting impact....William 15:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Huge amount of very significant coverage, obviously passing WP:GNG and is a major part of the air passenger experience public consciousness. The arguments above seem WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("I think had he not deployed the emergency shoot ..." "Person quits retail job ..." ). There could've been no emergency shoot and he simply stormed off the job and this could've still been notable, as long as the very significant coverage is there. As for WP:RECENTISM, this is still getting coverage years later.[15][16][17]. Clearly a case with longevity. --Oakshade (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WilliamJE. There's a section in JetBlue Airways that's appropriate for something like this - just expand the Incidents and Accidents subsection to include incidents similar to this. Would be a more appropriate venue. Velinath (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It was famous for a few weeks because people thought it was funny, but it's not encyclopedically notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The inclusion standards mentioned by the OP seem to state that something is notable if it has received significant coverage in unrelated third-party sources, which this unquestionably has. Those standards further go on to say that it has nothing to do with how important something is, or how long ago it happened, if it has received the required degree of coverage. Yes, there are a lot of "if"s which would have made this incident less remarkable "if" they had happened differently, but they did not. As for the Merge options mentioned above, I've seen many an article that briefly covers a specific incident, with a link to the main article about said incident. Given the size of this article, that seems to me to be the best way to link this article from the JetBlue article, so this sort of makes the opposite case for a merge. Rails (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admittedly, the subject seems much less important today than when the story broke. But the article meets the WP:GNG threshold. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG and continues to have some lasting significance. That incident continues to be a touchstone event referenced in articles about similar events--look at this GNews search of recent stories, for example[18]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge No lasting significance. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable and media coverage was only local. Flight attendant goes barmy is not a defining feature for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by "local" coverage you mean in the United Kingdom [19], Italy [20][21], Spain [22], Germany [23], India [24], Brazil [25], Uruguay [26] and many others, then yes, it was just "local." --Oakshade (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage, continues to be part of public consciousness. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non encycolpedic trivia Greglocock (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a section of the Jet Blue Wiki page. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, while this has indeed received quite a bit of coverage, how much WP:PERSISTENCE? And even if notable there's no need for anything more than a section on Jet Blue's page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Years later, it's still getting coverage.[27][28][29] --Oakshade (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As it is still being cited whenever similar incidents occur, that seems to indicate that the event has the "lasting significance" that WP:PERSISTENCE requires. Rails (talk) 23:57, 10 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Roscelese . KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 17:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per above comments. One-time incident that made Fark, not once but twice, and even a third time. Google trends has a spike in 2010 and almost nothing afterwards. Are we going to write an article about everything that gets greenlit on Fark? WTF? (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a red herring argument. Just because it was "greenlit" on Fark a topic is non-notable? Even if it wasn't "greenilt" on a novelty website it would've still had significant coverage (Fark got it from a Wall Street Journal article [30] which, along with many outlets coverage, obviously was published before fark linked the story). US Airways Flight 1549 has a spike in 2009 and "almost nothing afterwards", but that doesn't in any manner make the topic non-notable. --Oakshade (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as stated above- And in response to WTF?, if we had an article about whatever threads got greenlit on Fark, we'd need an article about a guy getting himself caught in the slats of a wooden seat. This thought frightens me. I'm so very scared. Help. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continues to get lots of coverage two years later, shown by results from Google News archive: [31]. Still hauled out as an example of a man making a dramatic exit from a sucky job. Deletion rationales imagining that he would not have gotten coverage if he had not deployed the chute are as pointless as saying Lee Harvey Oswald would be little known if gun had jammed, or Sullenberger would be forgotten if his plane had sunk in the river with all passengers and crew in their seats. Continuing widespread coverage on an ongoing basis demonstrates that the incident is a notable one. Edison (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly meets notability requirements and is well referenced. Was not a local event; media coverage for this at the time and subsequently was international. The article is not about Slater - whose notability would be questionable now - it's about the event in which he was the primary participant.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: just notable trivia.--Mariordo (talk) 23:27, 13 July 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) 18:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Club[edit]

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

Does not appear notable per the notability guideline for organizations and companies. Googling using the search term "The Green Club" brings up a plethora of results, but they're false positives, so I instead used the search term "The Green Club" abraham wate, which gives no results on Google Books, Google News, or Google News archives. Also worthy of note is that the article may have been created with promotional intentions (note how it explicitly states that "[The Green Club is] seeking an award") and how the creator of the article (Abrahamtesfaw) may be the founder of the organization (Abraham T. Wate), making a conflict of interest a possibility. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:01, 26 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 9 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:GNG and possible WP:PROMOTION. The Green Club is a charity based organization founded by Abraham T. Wate, a young entrepreneur who is also the Managing Director in this social enterprise. and the article is created by a user named Abrahamtesfaw. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 15:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be made by an SPA. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Clearly fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 22:00, 15 July 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 Windows CE#Versions. While there is no strong consensus in this discussion (mainly due to a lack of participation), the consensus at other recent AfD's (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows CE 4.0 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows CE 2.0) seems to indicate that the best solution for these articles is to redirect them to the main article. If, in the future, someone puts together a substantive article with significantly more content than already exists at the main article, then this article may be re-created. -Scottywong | confess _ 16:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows CE 1.0[edit]

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

Short, unsourced, reads like a dictionary entry. Nouniquenames (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windows CE#Versions as it was until 2 days ago when it was stubify and my revert was reverted. If someone can truely expand this to have some real content, then great. However as it stand, it have even less information than at Windows CE#Versions. KTC (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Benefit of the doubt given current improvements, neutral for now. KTC (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded it, like I did with 2.0 and 4.0! Someone, please close this thing. WinEuro (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this looks like it should have been a request to merge, not delete. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of nomination, there was nothing to merge. ~~Arguably, there's still nothing to merge.~~ KTC (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the right course of action here should be a merge, rather than a deletion - could this be merged with the article Microsoft Windows, which might help people to find their way around Wikipedia? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, someone else has expanded it further. WinEuro (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm working on improving the Windows CE articles (1.0, 2.0, and 4.0). It's going to take some time, but I definitely think the content is there, especially for the 2.0 and 4.0. Also, remember that being too short is not a valid reason for deletion. For those that wish for this article to be deleted, it's important that you provide valid reasons for such an action. Millermk (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind the status of the article when it was nominated for deletion, which had less information than was present in the redirect target of Windows CE. Merely being a stub is not a valid deletion rationale, but a stub "should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it". KTC (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will be nice if someone closes the discussion. Just because an article is short, DOESN'T mean it should be deleted, Nouniquenames. WinEuro (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Angry face[reply]

Please don't take the nomination personally. I did not nominate the article just because it was short, but also (primarily) because it was unsourced and read like a dictionary definition. --Nouniquenames (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you see a nomination of an article, think of it as not being suitable for Wikipedia now or suitable yet. While obvious vandalism won't stay, other borderline stuff (most of which gets the biggest audience at AfD) might deserved to be created some years down the line. The article is looking better, though I still feel a merge is more appropriate. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:31, 29 June 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, Davewild (talk) 17:59, 3 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the information provided is very few. There are only five lines of text of which the most informative is a simple enumeration of hardware manufacturers. Therefore, I find it hard to see the value of making it an article of its own. The aforesaid enumeration could be integrated into the main article but I fail to see why. VictorVautier (talk) 09:57, 15 July 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 Windows CE#Versions. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 16:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows CE 2.0[edit]

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

Short, unsourced, reads like a dictionary entry. Nouniquenames (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windows CE#Versions as it was until 2 days ago when it was stubify and my revert was reverted. If someone can truely expand this to have some real content, then great. However as it stand, it have even less information than at Windows CE#Versions. KTC (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded it. WinEuro (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm working on improving the Windows CE articles (1.0, 2.0, and 4.0). It's going to take some time, but I definitely think the content is there, especially for the 2.0 and 4.0. Also, remember that being too short is not a valid reason for deletion. For those that wish for this article to be deleted, it's important that you provide valid reasons for such an action. Millermk (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't someone close this discussion? WinEuro, 27 June 2012, 6:08 PM NZT —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question What's your justification for creating separate articles for each CE version? Subsections in Windows CE#Versions seems like a better approach. --Kvng (talk) 21:16, 1 July 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, Davewild (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple books on this particular version.[32][33] Individual versions of Windows desktop and different linux distros can get their own page, and other OSs often get a separate version history page that can provide more detail than just a few lines on the main OS page (e.g. iOS version history). On a practical level, it's much better to have a separate article on each version rather than one big article that says "version 4 adds blah, version 3 adds blah, version 2 adds blah" so you have to check back and forth through the history to find what's actually in an individual version. You could merge to a single Windows CE history page, but I think the most useful would be to have separate pages on each version. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windows CE#Versions. Unsourced (WP:V) and almost devoid of information. There is no point in spinning so little information out into a separate article before there is enough material to warrant one, per WP:SS. Sandstein 06:12, 11 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the information provided is very few. There are only two (net) lines of text and no references at all. Therefore, I find it hard to see the value of making it an article of its own. Moreover, the info provided is redundant to the main article. VictorVautier (talk) 09:52, 15 July 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) 18:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Đukić (Sandžak)[edit]

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

Pure Original research, none of the sources mention anything linked to Đukić (Sandžak), which is an article about the Muslim families of the Đukić brotherhood (which includes Serbs, Christians), itself part of the Vasojevići clan (see the first paragraph in the history section, pure OR with no scholarly refs). There is a list of people supposedly part of this Đukić (Sandžak)-family, but with no sources. No notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoupan (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Zoupan 02:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Zoupan 02:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Đukić, dropping any original research. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Đukić is a disambiguation page, and since Đukić (Sandžak) is OR - nothing should be moved. I added "*Đukić, a brotherhood of the Vasojevići" to the disambiguation page.--Zoupan 09:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator.--Zoupan 09:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator's arguments. The text consists of manifest nonsense and OR. I found only one acceptable statement in it: "Vasojevic tribe was first mentioned in 1444." Vladimir (talk) 15:34, 10 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasons. Article does not exactly establish the notability of this name without WP:RS. --Artene50 (talk) 23:41, 11 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forum of Mathematics[edit]

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

Non-notable: journals don't even exist yet. Article creation vastly premature. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article dePRODded with reason "The announcement of these journals is an important step in the open-access movement". Even if true, this is not a reason for notability. However, there are by now hundreds of OA journals and almost all major publishers now have at least a few, so it is difficult to see what is special about these ones. The only independent sources are to blog posts. Until these journals become notable: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per WP:CRYSTAL these may one day be notable but they aren't yet, per the nomination.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and User:JohnBlackburn - these journals do not exist yet. Therefore, there is no demonstration of notability per WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Also, there are no independent reilable sources regarding the subject(s) of this article. So there are no acceptable sources that say this announcement "...is an important step in the open-access movement." ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NJOURNAL, WP:TOOSOON. However, I did find some third party coverage (even though possibly just a regurgitated press release) at knowledgespeak.com. I've failed to get a specific URL for it but a search for "Cambridge University Press waives author charges for new OA mathematics journals" retrieves it. It's dated 03 Jul 2012. Clicking "Forward this" doesn't produce a URL either, but an HTML email. -- Trevj (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Open-access journal as an interesting development. There is some coverage (e.g. in Terence Tao's blog). Revisit this article when the journal is in operation. -- 202.124.73.78 (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, hold your horses. In the time since the above comments were made, the journals have now been the main topic of coverage in the media: "Maths journals open up" therefore there is now notability per WP:GNG. In fact ordinarily the launch of an academic journal would not expect to have any general media coverage so the fact that this launch does now have coverage shows that this launch is extraordinarily notable by journal standards. Mistory (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fields Medalists Terrence Tao and Tim Gowers are among the founding editors, and the publisher is Cambridge University Press. Gowers is the one whose blog posting started the Cost of Knowledge boycott, and this journal is being touted as the ideal alternative to the old system being boycotted. Some newsworthiness here, maybe? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTNEWS. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume2303 says there are many open-access journals. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics is one of those. It's for papers in certain areas of research that can be considered combinatorics. Are there any general ones like this in mathematics? I wonder how we should treat a blog post by a world-renowned authority when considering what are "reliable sources", or whatever the term is? I know John Baez's blog posts have been cited a lot by Wikipedia articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, but I am not seeing widespread noteriety pertaining to this annoucement -- please see here and here. This doesn't really satisfy WP:GNG (at this time). Also, I don'see how this is an intersting development more than any other Open Access journal that has been established in the last few years. Some have become notable (and worthy of inclusion) and some have not. Unfortunately, this journal has not had enough time to establish noteriety of any sort. Also, of course, the prestige of the founders and editors is not inherited by the journal itself. Also a blog post is not necessarily a WP:RS reliable source. --Steve Quinn (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The three links at the end of the article consitute the significant coverage required by WP:GNG, in my opinion. In response to some issues raised above:

Blogs aren't usually considered reliable sources, but some exceptions apply. Quoting from WP:USERG: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This is certainly true of blogs by Tim Gowers and Terence Tao.
WP:NJournals lists three criteria, of which the third is "The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history." It could be argued that this journal has a historic purpose.
The primary criteria for notability are those set out in WP:GNG. If this journal meets the GNG, as I think it does, then arguments that it fails Njournals are irrelevant here.
Cambridge University Press has established an editorial board and announced that they will publish the journal. There is no speculation involved here; the Wikipedia article states verifiable facts. In other words, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. Jowa fan (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your two points about blogs and GNG overruling NJournals. CRYSTAL applies because at this point, we cannot be sure this undertaking is going to work (I agree that the chances of failure are very low, but nothing is certain and even reputed publishers like CUP have occasionally launched a dud). I certainly disagree with the argument that there is a historic purpose here. There are thousands of OA journals and some of the very first ones (like the EJC mentioned above) were in mathematics and had notable people involved. I don't see anything special about these journals at this point. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On those four points:

As you write, "when produced by an established expert on the topic". Neither is an established experts on publishing; their blogs aren't publishing blogs.
It can't have a significant history/historic purpose before it's published.
That's simply your view, not a reason; but it's usual to use the more specific guideline when available.
CUP publishes many things, the vast majority of which are not notable.

--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- I don't think the blog posts by Gowers and Tao can be considered reliable sources because they are not independent third party reporters. They have a stake in promoting their own journal. At best, in terms of reliable sourcing, these two have conflict of interest. Furthermore, as per JohnBlackburne, it can't have a signifigant historic impact before its even published. Any kind of characterization that this is a historic event is an attempt to inflate the signifigance of a publication that isn't. Additionally, because there doesn't seem to be anything remarkable above other OA journals that are already published, I have to agree with the others that WP:CRYSTAL does apply. Also inflating the signigance of a publication or research is not a bad thing, it is happens frequently enough. Just ask anyone who keeps up with the research in their field (IMHO). It is just inclusion in Wikipedia cannot be based on "hype" WP:PUFFERY. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation...1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." As far as I can see, the facts documented in the article are verifiable, and the publication of the journals is almost certain to take place. Exactly which part of WP:CRYSTAL applies? Do you agree that the key issue is notability, or can you point to specific parts of the article that you would decribe as speculation? As for WP:PUFFERY, it's just an essay, not policy or guideline. Jowa fan (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL applies as it is assumed that these journals will become notable, something we cannot yet know. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PEACOCK is actually what I meant - which is part of the WP:MOS (a guideline). Also, I did not realize that Wikipedia had such an eloquent essay at WP:PUFFERY. Thanks for pointing that out. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:CRYSTAL does seem to apply. First, I can only see that one acceptable source has discussed this topic and that is the Australian newspaper (the blogs probably cannot be considered). Therefore, it does not have sufficient widespread interest to cross the threshold into noteriety (or notability). Second, discussion and arguments about the prospects for success, notability, or whether some development will occur, are mostly taking place at this AfD discussion. There is not a flurry of wide spread press coverage that is the same as if a notable event already happened. For an example, take any new "something" that has grabbed the imagination of the public and press. Then see the press coverage (and sometimes research coverage) such as this: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incubate The speculation here is not of interest to Wikipedia at this time, as we don't need to speculate about the future, we can wait for it. Looks like this topic needs to wait until at least January 2013 to come back, and possibly January 2014. If it makes anyone happier, then incubate it. Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An IP editor added to the article some non-neutral phrases like "high-quality" and "prestigious", however these have now been removed and the rest of the article is purely factual, therefore WP:PEACOCK and WP:PUFFERY do not apply to the content of this article. Since the journals aren't available yet, the guideline WP:NJournals is clearly not applicable to this situation. The article does mention future dates but these refer to the announced schedule - they are not predictions, therefore WP:CRYSTAL does not apply either. The subject of the article has been covered in the media as the main topic of a news article so certainly passes the criteria in WP:GNG - the content of the article can easily be verified from the sources listed. Mistory (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources. Currently, we have 1 such a source here. Whether more will come and whether these journals will get off the ground, my crystal ball isn't telling me. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of writing, WP:GNG is somewhat inconsistent with itself with regards to the issue of multiple sources: The guideline-section of WP:GNG says m.s. are generally expected but it does not say they are essential. The reasoning behind the guideline is given in the "Why do we ..."-section which offers the explanation: "we require multiple sources because ..." even though this was not stated as a requirement in the guideline section, - and the fact that the guideline doesn't state this as a requirement is emphasised in the footnotes to the guideline-section where it specifically says: "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view". Mistory (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, the Peacock-(ing) and Puffery-(tizing) I was refering to were the inflated descriptions by the blog authors. Apparently I got the idea across - which is, "all we want are the facts, ma'am" (or sir). Likewise, the journal's own description is somewhat inflated. And relying on a single source to determine notability (from the land down under, or one more upward) might pertain to undue wieght. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the single source communicates some sort of neutral view but I don't think that translates to inclusion in Wikipedia (notability). This journal isn't even in existence yet, so how can any source give a neutral report describing the journal? I think not having published a single issue makes this a different concern. As I showed earlier there is no flurry of press reports in the main stream media annoucing this "new" journal. And that is the only thing this journal has to rely on for inclusion -- and it hasn't happened. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I don't see why you linked to a particular version of the WP:GNG. I don't think it matters. Somehow the line that was picked miscontrues what the guideline acutally says. It says that a subject must have "signifigant coverage", and that phrase is used nine times throughout the guideline. And "signifigant attention" appears to be used once, but it means the same. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the current version so that if it gets modified then people still know what I am referring to. That's the way the phrase "At the time of writing" is usually used. Mistory (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:GNG guideline also gives a definition of what the guideline means by "significant coverage": "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed. The coverage of 'Forum of Mathematics' by 'The Australian' seems to fit that definition. Mistory (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Undue weight"??? Are you just naming policies at random to confuse the issue? Or do you seriously believe there exists a significant viewpoint, documented in reliable sources, that the article fails to give due weight to? Jowa fan (talk) 07:11, 10 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To discuss the new sources and whether the article now passes the GNG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, passing WP:GNG does not change the fact that as per WP:NOT we don't need product announcements on Wikipedia. Even when the media gives attention to press releases, there is still no encyclopedic value when all that we can report is the product announcement. Unscintillating (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going to Category:Mathematics journals and clicking on a few links at random, I find that most Wikipedia pages for mathematics journals contain about the same amount of information as the page for Forum of Mathematics. There seems to be a consensus that a page of this type and length is sufficiently encyclopedic. Jowa fan (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. And it's pointless doing such a search anyway: you can't compare this with similar articles that were deleted for obvious reasons. So to save arguments over 'x exists'/'x was deleted' we instead have policies, such as those referenced above, to guide us.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The situation here is analogous to Windows 8; although not yet released, it soon will be. The Forum of Mathematics is notable as it has received significant press coverage. In addition, the statements in the article are verified by reliable sources. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:24, 14 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farhi Saeed bin Mohammed[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are primary sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports).DBig Xray 21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles are on the same topic and have the same issues as mentioned above. Besides the cases of these subjects are already mentioned in Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay (Note: I have already followed WP:BEFORE for these articles and I am nominating them after being fully convinced) :

The consensus on recent similar AfDs [39] [40] [41] was Delete DBig Xray 21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subjects appear to fail WP:BIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty much fails WP:BIO.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - WP:BLP1E, being arrested and held in Gitmo is not a noteworthy enough of a single event to surpass 1E even where there is scant reliable Source coverage, and even that doesn't exist for these people. Tarc (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all these articles fail WP:BLP1E Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Also there is nothing WP:N about them. →TSU ^tp* 15:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Reject delete arguments as throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, outdated use of PRIMARY followed by a five-member decision on a wiki-wide issue, disingenous invocation of privacy rights, uninformed voting, etc etc. Anarchangel (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelli Faghoul noted in particular. There are ten non-Primary sources in that article, even as it stands, without having to check Books and News. Anarchangel (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions in reliable sources do not add up to notability. And even if they did, none of these people can overcome WP:BLP1E; they are only discussed slightly because they spent time in Gitmo, nothing more. Whatever way you try to spin the WP:ARS magic, it hits a complete dead-end on these subjects. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (all). The coverage is substantial, and independent of the subject. Or is it alleged that he wrote the report of the US commissions or arranged for or approved their publication? And at the very least, it can be merged into a combination article, so deletion is not appropriate. The view that is is significant is the political judgment that those imprisoned there are so unimportant that what is written about them is unimportant, and that is the sort of political bias that is inappropriate in Wikipedia. I recognize those voting to delete may not be aware of the conscious bias, but that does not mean it is not present. Our rejection of these articles would amount to a drastic violation of NPOV, just as previous deletions have been. It is time to correct our course, and then reverse the earlier deletions. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the useful information is included at a combination article Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay--DBig Xray 08:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not going to happen. I'd say the keepers are confusing notability of GITMO detention itself, and the surrounding criticism, with notability of individual detainees. One does not confer notability on the other, a form of WP:NOTINHERITED. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I accept, at face value, that nominator is acting in good faith, and honestly thinks they have complied with our policies, including WP:BEFORE, which he or she explicitly claimed above. Nevertheless, it is impossible to make a meaninful attempt to address concerns in raised in Afd when a half dozen new Afd are filed per day.

I spent hours working on Ahmed Belbacha article. I really only scratched the surface.

Nominator is on record that ``none of these articles should ever have been created`` -- when a considerable fraction of the Guantanamo articles they are nominating already survived an earlier Afd.

I am the contributor who started this articles, and most of the other articles on Guantanamo captives. Let me state, for the record, I acknowledge, and agree, that it doesn`t matter if articles measured up to the standards current at the time they were written, and it doesn`t matter if they measured up to the standards current when the survived earlier Afd, if they can`t be made to measure up to the standards current today. I believe that all the articles in this list can be made to measure up to standards current today -- but they can`t be brought up to those standards in a week, when the same nominator initiated a half dozen new nominations per day. Geo Swan (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at creator Geo Swan: When I said "none of these articles should ever have been created" I was clearly referring to the BLPs for the non notable subjects such as these. Many of the guantanamo prisoners were notable and had WP:SIGCOV does not mean that any prisoner will be notable. Also you cannot say that you were not given enough time to eshtablish notability as the article was created on 30 May 2006‎. And after more than a year of the RFC/U pointed by other editors on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Said_Muhammad_Husayn_Qahtani--DBig Xray 21:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - keep arguments are based on inherited notability, "it must be notable", and spurious WP:CSB arguments. There is no notability for these people outside of their detention; a mention at Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay is the only needed content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 11 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Er, Crisco, we're at 7-3 (8 if nom is tallied) in favor of deletion. Unless one is suggesting critical flaws with the deletion rationales, how is this not a clear consensus. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My initial reading was that the new sources had not been discussed in depth, but a second read-through belies that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 11 July 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: now it seems ok, and I withdraw the nomination. (Non-admin closure). Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Joseph Ramos[edit]

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

Until today, it was an unsourced BLP. Today, it was marked as a joint work of the day, and I decided to source it. Despite having invested a considerable amount of time, I was only able to source one sentence - that Khalil Joseph Ramos was the second runner-up of a TV contest, and only from an affiliated website - 0f the company running the contest. The rest - his bio and the TV appearances - I can not reliably source. There is a lot of info on the internet, but it goes up to Facebook and Twitter and thus is not reliable. If we remove everything but the sourced sentence, the person is not notable. (I doubt whether he is notable even if everything can be sourced - but this is a different issue). Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found and article on the Manila Bulletin (link), as well a page on Push.com.ph (although it is affiliated with ABS-CBN in the same way that PEP.ph is affiliated with GMA) here. I'm not sure if the latter source is reliable, but the first link makes me believe that his notability is just barely established. Of course, the article should be improved first. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Found sources too from Push, PEP, and ABS-CBN news. Havent tried to open them all though cause I'm currently in mobile mode. Try searching Khalil Ramos he is widely known by that name. --Renzoy16 | Contact Me 20:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks to those who responded I added a number of references to the article, and now we have the following facts confirmed by sources: third place in the contest; participation in the TV-show; the fact that he is a college students. Good, but in my opinion insufficient for notability. Let us wait.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ill try to help you out with this. And to structure or organize his page too.--Renzoy16 | Contact Me 06:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added new credible references. Updated his article. Though the person is new in the industry, I think he is a notable person, and is worthy for an article here in Wikipedia.--Renzoy16 | Contact Me 07:17, 15 July 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Butler[edit]

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

as per my previous nomination, simply being 2nd oldest person does not confer notability. no extensive coverage, years after her death [42]. LibStar (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Being the oldest or second oldest supercentenarian is a very hard thing to do. I think having a record of someone who was the second oldest person in the UK is not unreasonable. Many supercentenarians don't live long anyway--unlike Jean Calment of France who was a rarity. Having a brief article on the second oldest person is OK with me. But I would draw the line at the third oldest supercentenarian. --Artene50 (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to List of British supercentenarians Seasider91 (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The references satisfy me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person passes WP:BASIC per: 1, 2, 3. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:34, 18 July 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. Nominator has withdrawn and there is a broad consensus to keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CIITM[edit]

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

Unclear notability. Creator has possible WP:COI. Perhaps someone with a better understanding than me of the Indian educational scene can help the page creator to establish notability, assuming that's possible. Nczempin (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified tertiary educational institutions are usually held to be notable. This appears to be an accredited college with a proper campus as opposed to one of the tiny fly-by-night private colleges that we certainly don't keep articles about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be very careful not to say "AICTE accredited" (in the article as well as on the web site). Instead, they say "AICTE approved, and affiliated to the accredited University of Rajasthan" (on their web site). Nczempin (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is similar to hundreds of other pages on wiki , I am not getting what is the problem with this page. People use Wiki as the source of authenticated information. So even if this college has its website, it should have its page on wiki for user verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.172.61 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason to keep any particular page. If you are "not getting what is the problem", try following some of the links that were provided here on this page and on the article's page, that point to some important Wikipedia guidelines. For example, there is one that encourages you to sign your posts on talk pages. Or there's one that helps you decide what's notable and what's not. For the cases where it's not immediately obvious to everyone that it's one way or the other, we have discussions such as this one. I'll post some additional help on the talk page of the IP address you posted from, which may or may not be the same one you're using right now. Nczempin (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - tertiary institutions have long been considered notable and I see no reason why this one should be any different. TerriersFan (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly something else than a typical university. Unlike Necrothesp's conjecture, this is not an "accredited college", and it does not award "accredited degrees". CIITM is one of 202 "affiliates" of Rajasthan Technical University. They have 13 classrooms that hold a maximum of 60 students each. Is it really notable enough to have its own page, or could it be merged into the parent university/universities? Nczempin (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"University" and "tertiary institution" are not the same thing. An institution does not have to award its own degrees to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. So any tertiary institution is notable by default. Then why is there no Speedy-Keep? Perhaps you could address my other questions/concerns, but if there's no point in any discussion, just let me know. Nczempin (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not actually "notable by default", but long-standing consensus is that all secondary and tertiary institutions are notable and they are invariably kept at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could address my other questions/concerns, but if there's no point in any discussion, just let me know. Nczempin (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be a legitimate tertiary educational institution. Regarding the "AICTE approved, and affiliated to the accredited University of Rajasthan" bit, that kind of arrangement seems to be fairly common in India. I can't explain what it means, but I've seen it many times before. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was hoping someone ("with a better understanding than me of the Indian educational scene") _would_ be able to explain. Nczempin (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to withdraw my nomination; the evidence/consensus is overwhelming. No idea if this comment is sufficient, or what if anything else I need to do. Nczempin (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AICTE allocates the no. of seats that a college can have in engineering and management. Thats why the term 'approved' is used. Rajasthan Technical university conducts the exams and provide the degree under Rajasthan University, that is why the term 'affiliated' is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojcsl (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 July 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 - reason for nomination no longer exists. Nouniquenames (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Adler[edit]

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

BLP with no citations. PRODed - contested with "This article has many sources - they are misplaced into External links" External links are: 1 press release, youtube, and primary sources Nouniquenames (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ~~Completely unreferenced puffery. Would have tagged for db-promo except there's some SPA guarding it. EEng (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)~~Meets PROF #5[reply]
Hi, who is the SPA "guarding" the article? I could not identify who you are speaking of from the history. thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads a bit like a self-promotional piece on John Adler but I see no reliable sources for his notability. The first weblink really doesn't mention him and the Accuray webpage doesn't either. Both can't be considered a reliable source anyway. Its hard to believe this article has been here since 2006 The article's creator made a few edits on Adler and a few topics in late 2006 and then left wikipedia...forever. --Artene50 (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, removing puffery,; notable per WP:PROF #5, as well as as made a minor contribution to medical equipment; founder of a company which also meets notability requirements, the article of which is also a puff piece requiring cleanup. However, puffery is to be rephrased and cleaned up, it is not a reason for deletion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy is obviously notable, both as former holder of an endowed professorship (when I went to verify that I found that he is now emeritus and so noted in the article) and as the inventor of a really significant piece of medical equipment, the CyberKnife. In addition, his highly-cited publication record[43] confirms him as meeting WP:ACADEMIC. I found no puffery in the article; it has apparently been cleaned up since nomination. I put in some references (mostly self-referential, but adequate to verify claims) in place of the external links. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MelanieN's reference's. --Artene50 (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep. h-index around 40 passes WP:Prof#C1 easily. Thanks to MelanieN for saving this article. A bizarrely mistaken nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Article has improved significantly. Original deletion rationale no longer seems to apply. I will gladly withdraw the nomination. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:19, 13 July 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Painting Techniques of Zhang Daqian[edit]

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

This is completely a work of original research. There is already an article on Chang Dai-chien. Any useful info here can be added to that article. As it stands, this is not really an article but a list of apparent techniques without context. I don't see how this could be rewritten -- and it would need to be completely rewritten -- into a useful article. freshacconci talktalk 03:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talktalk 04:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Dai-chien is an article of artist's biography, nevertheless Painting Techniques of Zhang Daqian is an article of artist's painting styles and related special research. They are two completely different subjects. There should be no reasons to combine them into one same matter of a less useful and less meaningful article. Besides this article is not an orphan at all, as lots of other articles including Chang Dai-chien link to it. Meantime the article of Chang Dai-chien wrote on a subject of Forgeries (only minimum percent) of Zhang Daqian exclusively and nothing else concerning his painting techniques and other maximum contributions. Therefore these are two articles with two apparently different points of view. It's better just to link them together, not to combine them together in a state of confusion. Orionandhsu (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete cannot really stand on its own, ~~either delete or work into this -> imo it belongs there -> Chang Dai-chien~~...Modernist (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete as seen above...Modernist (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Chang Dai-chien. INeverCry 20:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Delete ~~into Chang Dai-chien if there's anything that can be saved. Delete if there isn't.~~ Silver seren^C 07:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and must not merge. Articles created/expanded by Orionandhsu/Orionwebmuseum/OrionHsu (all likely the same person) are highly suspicious and have been reported to the administrators here. The only reference the article cites is a Chinese website which appears to be written by Orion Web Musuem, likely the same person as Orionandhsu. It is original research, and given that the author does not know the difference between technique and subject matter or style, it cannot be regarded as scholarly and cannot stay anywhere in wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Hzh. User:Orionandhsu, who created the article, appears to be a sock puppet of User:Orionwebmuseum, who's been blocked for spamming. -Zanhe (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All info of value should be in the artists page Seasider91 (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Chang Dai-chien article can indeed serve to be expanded as User:Orionandhsu suggests, but within the constraints of standard wikipedia practice which I believe the Painting Techniques of Zhang Daqian entry is problematic. I recently added a brief, sourced, section in the Chang Dai-chien entry in an attempt to begin to expand the non-forgery section of his career. So, the intent of the editor is solid, but the practice is deficient. Hence, my recommendation to Delete. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC) (signature added one day later - sorry)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Cape Verde[edit]

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

While this topic could be encyclopedic, this article is a stub with nothing worth saving. It's three sentences of advice for tourists which provides no insights or background into the role of women in Cape Verde. Pburka (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article from July 2008 serves no useful purpose and should be dynamited. The reference to 'macho culture' may be useful to tourists but not to the real women of Cape Verde. --Artene50 (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I'm all for WP:MAKESTUBS, but this is ridiculous. An article like this should not be a stub. Instead, it should be a history of treatment of women in Cape Verde through the ages. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 17:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hate to say it, but we may have to blow it up and start over. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 14 July 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) BusterD (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stavros Malas[edit]

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

I'm nominating this under the thinking that we can't have articles on every minister of health in every country, especially for articles of this short of a length. I'm not against the person being written about, I just think that if we allow this, then we're allowing one-liners on every ministers in or out of office. Please excuse me if I'm thinking about this incorrectly, as this is my first Afd submission, but I strongly disagree with allowing this article to stay in its current shape Kangaroopowah 03:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person meets WP:POLITICIAN as the health minister (a cabinet level position) of Cyprus. Nominator claims that we "we can't have articles on every minister of health in every country" but this is not a valid argument for deletion. We ought to have referenced articles about every cabinet level minister in every country throughout history, even if practical considerations dictate that we won't have all those articles any time soon. If the nominator is concerned that the article is too short, then please expand it and reference it. References are available using the search tool provided above: Financial Mirror, Helsing Sanomat. The Cyprus Mail covers this person frequently, although most of the articles are archived rather than readily available online. Some recent Cyprus Mail articles available here indicate that he may be a presidential candidate next year, which increases his notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The health minister of a foreign country means he seats at the cabinet and passes WP:POLITICIAN. This article establishes that he exists and this article is genuine. Strangely, there is no Greek wikipedia article on him. --Artene50 (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG (sources abound) and WP:POLITICIAN (presumption of notability). Location (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The special notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN is referenced repeatedly above. It does not speak to automatic notability of cabinet officials, however:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.(FOOTNOTE) This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless.(END OF NOTE) This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
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.

Far be it from me to argue that cabinet ministers shouldn't receive a free pass under this rule — they should. But a cabinet ministry is not an office, therefore a valid defense rationale should be based upon either GNG (the citation of multiple, independent, published sources), or upon the use of common sense that this is the sort of material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia, WP:IAR. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although cabinet members are not explicitly referenced in WP:POLITICIAN, my interpretation is that a cabinet member is someone who holds a national political office. By definition, an official is someone who holds an office and cabinet members are considered officials. (A politician, of course, is someone who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making and need not be elected.)

I am not completely opposed to expanding the guideline to include what you have suggested below, but I fear instruction creep where the guideline is already sufficient to establish a person's notability. My preference would be to clarify the definition of "politician" and "office". Let me know if you think any of this should be raised in Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Location (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the principle of WP:Ignore All Rules. This is exactly the sort of material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. The Politician notability guideline should be expanded to include: "Individuals holding cabinet-level positions in national governments." Carrite (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the spirit of the law in WP:POLITICIAN is clearly that cabinet ministers are presumed notable, ("national office") however per User:Cullen328 above, he clearly also meets the WP:GNG. This is a good faith nomination however AFD is not the place to clean up articles. Valenciano (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG. I also support the presumption of cabinet ministers as notable under WP:POLITICAN #1. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is he a government minister, which would in itself make his inclusion a no-brainer, he's also the governing party's presidential candidate. Someone please close this early and counsel the nominator about how misguided this nomination was. Everyking (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, but I nominated this article not as is, but when it was the first revision of the article. I realize that this was made incorrectly, but had the article included the info it has now, I wouldn't have nominated it. --Kangaroopowah 23:30, 16 July 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.