Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 June	10 June >

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. I have to agree with the "keep" !voters here. I don't see a strong enough consensus to make an exception to our longstanding tradition of keeping such articles. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khtum Reay Lech[edit]

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

Very short article that does not indicate why "Khtum Reay Lech" is important or notable. CyanGardevoir 08:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a village, and by editor consensus, villages are notable regardless of size. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But villages still have to verifiably exist before they can be considered notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia's geographic notability guideline states the following: "Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low." After searching on several online maps, I cannot find the village. In Cambodia, villages are part of communes, which are part of districts, which are part of provinces. The village is mentioned in the articles for Bat Trang Commune and Mongkol Borei District. I believe that the village exists based on this source, but with its mention in two other articles, minimal information about Khtum Reay Lech on its own page, and no other claim to notability, I don't think that we need this article. NJ Wine (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the village's existiance can be verified, Wikipedia's remit as a gazeteer calls for the article to be retained. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 9 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 22:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The usual situation for a village. North8000 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NJ Wine. it can always be recreated if sufficient info comes to light. Given that Northamerica1000 has not dug up links it must be a pretty minor location. Lets not forget that we are quibbling about an "article" that contains one damn sentence. Please realise that deletion is not permanent. The article can alway be recreated at a later stage. We are wasting out time here (he says without a hint of irony). There are thousands of other article that need creating that are far more important than this one. Think about context, rationality, cost-benefit analysis, the Big Picture. ...sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The timewasting is caused by this not being automatically closed as "keep" once a reliable source was found. The cost-benefit analysis is that it would take more work to recreate this from scratch rather than leave it alone for people to improve if and when they find more sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Any settlement like this is notable enough. We have articles on all the villages of Australia, then why not Cambodia. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:23, 16 June 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 Minor seventh. Seems to be consensus to redirect/delete; no one has opposed the redirect to the musical interval, which seems helpful. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor 7th[edit]

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

I found no reliable sources covering this. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't find the nomination to be useful to prepare a community discussion. Nor is the topic is a "high risk" article whose AfD discussion is urgent. There are no sources on the article itself, the article was created in January 2008 and has had a quiet history, with only one brief comment on the talk page. The topic is not listed at Worldcat.org. There is no press page on the topic's website that would make our job easier. The topic has no Google news hits. I tried various Google searches to confirm the facts in the article without success, for example [+"Alan Fark" +"Minor 7th" -wiki -wikipedia 1999]. There are Google hits that mention the site in various ways and the topic seems legit. It appears to have remained stable for over ten years, which is an indicator of notability. If a topic fails notability, we then need to consider if there are appropriate targets for merger. This is the point where I looked at the "What links here", which is an area that needs attention. Looking at two links, one is an incorrect link needing the musical interval, and one is a legitimate link to the article. At this point, I'm posting my findings without a recommendation. Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need not be "high risk" to be nominated for AfD. Anything any editor believes to fail any of the criteria for necessitating a full article can be nominated p b p 03:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments sound odd. I said that it fails WP:WEB which starts the discussion on the topic's notability per WP:WEB. I don't need to type a long drawn out explanation. Why do you think that articles should be high risk? Existing for a long time is not an indicator because coverage is. You said yourself that you found no coverage so not having a position is odd as well. SL93 (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of Ron Ritzman's theory of AfD nominations that the standards for the quality of AfD nominations can be lower/neglected when an article is a BLP consideration, or a "high risk" topic. If I may ask, did you follow step B5 of WP:BEFORE, to check "What links here"? Have you done any analysis of possible merge targets? I was preparing a Delete !vote until I clicked on "What links here" Either this source is getting used a lot and we are missing the sources we need to show notability, or maybe we need to merge to a notable topic and keep the redirect, or there are a several links that need to be cleaned up. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the, "Why does a lot of stuff link here?", minor seventh is a common Interval. It's quite possible that many of the things that link there are references to the interval rather than the magazine

To the Step B5 of BEFORE, I must remind you that BEFORE is not policy, not a guideline, and not mandatory. The same could be said of Ritzman's AfD triage system p b p 05:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do the searching part of WP:BEFORE, but then again WP:BEFORE isn't required anyway. I don't care about one editor's theory. If Ron gets community consensus, good for him, but he doesn't have that at the moment. I think that Before is usually used to harass good faith editors. That is a part of WP:AFD, but there is no consensus that it should be required despite the many discussions. Maybe there is consensus among inclusionists, but I am not an inclusionist. Until a guideline or policy is created about following Before, there is no reason to harass editors with it. SL93 (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per not having any sources and per even the Google search not being that fruitful p b p 03:00, 4 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 22:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no proof that any reliable sources have made themselves known. Also suggest redirect to Minor seventh, the musical term, as a likely search. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero indication of wp:notability. Zero references. North8000 (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I presented my high risk/low risk idea in this village pump thread back in June 2010 and my main concern was how admins (or non-admin closing people) should approach an AFD consensus that was apparently against policy and perhaps how it should be dealt with at DRV. It had nothing to do with how AFDs should be argued or what steps the nominator should take before nominating. Also, the article being discussed here would actually be a "medium risk" article due to the possibility of it being used to promote the subject. A Pokemon or an episode of Stargate SG1 would be an example of a "low risk" article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statements to which you seem to be trying to respond are, "Nor is the topic is a "high risk" article whose AfD discussion is urgent." and "It is part of Ron Ritzman's theory of AfD nominations that the standards for the quality of AfD nominations can be lower/neglected when an article is a BLP consideration, or a "high risk" topic." The source for this statement is archived at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_89, regarding AfD nominations by either blocked or banned editors, where the statement is dated 16:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Unscintillating (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot about that one. In that case the subject was AFDs started by banned editors and last time I checked, SL93 isn't banned. As to how he found such a little known out of the way article, I use to wonder the same thing myself. In SL93's case, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, I think he patrols categories for articles with notability issues and Category:Music webzines and Category:Guitar magazines were just next on the list. The drawback with this approach is that if one of the cats you're patrolling has a lot of articles significantly edited by a single editor, he may mistakenly believe that you are stalking his edits and targeting his (sic) articles. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I generally avoid off-site references regarding Wikipedia editors, if it is important for regular editors, the admins need to put it on Wikipedia. Also, please note that WP:TPG states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Unscintillating (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not notable per the criteria of WP:WEB or WP:GNG. I could find absolutely no independent coverage of this online magazine. Google search found only self-referential items and of course this article. Google News found no independent mentions at all. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I like TPH's suggestion of a redirect to Minor seventh. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 16 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Lamont[edit]

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

I've raised notability concerns regarding this article before and I think a consensus is required regarding the notability of receiving the "Churchill Fellowship Medal" (Winston Churchill Memorial Trusts) as a well-known and significant award or honor (WP:ANYBIO). Whilst it is a subjective assessment and can be unreliable, the only WikiProject on Talk:Winston Churchill Memorial Trusts rates it low-importance. Callanecc (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm inexperienced, but I noticed on the Australian Churchill Memorial Trusts website that it has been awarded 3500 times in Australia since the 1960s. Does this affect our interpretation of significance? EricEnfermero | Howdy! 22:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Churchill Fellowship is a Fellowship to study and travel, it is not award. Although they might receive a medal it seems to be more of a token. I can find very few other sources on google referring to it as a "Churchill Fellowship Medal" and I don't think its significant enough to pass WP:ANYBIO. Elizabeth Lamont herself doesn't seem notable enough to pass WP:ARTIST.Sarahj2107 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. No wp:notability-suitable references or coverage. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of affiliations of Rajat Gupta[edit]

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

Does this information really need to be in a separate article? TOW talk 22:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at Talk:Rajat_Gupta#Affiliation_List it appears there is/was already an ongoing discussion about this. I'm not sure AfD is the best place to be discussing it, especially when no actual deletion rationale has been put forward. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary duplication. No need to merge because the contents of this page were/are in the main Rajat Gupta page at Rajat_Gupta#Affiliation_List. From that page's history, appears the author split this page from the main page because of edit warring with no consensus. Many of the claimed affiliations are unsourced, poorly sourced or contentious. Discussion is already ongoing at Talk:Rajat_Gupta on how to deal with the list as part of the main article. The separate article should be deleted. DocTree (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Swliv, Monstermike and I have gone back and forth about this forever. It's temporarily duplicated until we can figure out what to do -- there was no consensus between the three of us about whether it should be its own page or on Rajat Gupta's page. No deletion rationale has been put forward on this list, however. All of the affiliations are sourced and not contentious -- I have sourced every one -- please write on my talk page if you think anything's missing. Thanks! My[2011] (talk) | 01:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly absurd overcoverage. This is an integral part of anyone's biography. The only such section which we frequently accept as a separate article is a bibliography/disocgraphy/filmography -- I'm pretty ambivalent about that, also, except for truly famous creative people, and it would be a very bad mistake to let this sort of article split expand any further. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 17 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 06:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic cleric–scientists[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP user. Reason given on talk page is: "Article exists solely to promote the dogma that human science was advanced because of, rather than despite, the Roman Catholic Church. See the sole author's bizarre polemic on the talk page: 'The Church conceives of itself as Catholic because that is the nature of the Church founded by Christ. This universality through space and time is a work in progress and was set in motion by Christ's command to make disciples of all nations. The Church had this mandate from the beginning.'" I remain neutral. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The IP user provides no rationale for the deletion of the article other than the fact that he seems to disagree with it. IMO article is a valuable contribution to the Wikipedia project. Akasseb (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very one-sided article without proper sources. I don't think it can be rescued. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep- has some huge POV issues, but these can be fixed through proper editing. The contributions made to science by the Roman Catholic church are indisputably a topic that can and should be covered here. Reyk _YO! 00:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is considerable overlap with List of Catholic scientists and this should be taken into account. Also it is not really restricted to clerics as people like Galileo are listed. However, I think it is a notable topic. Pehaps it should be moved to Contribution of Catholicism to Science and cut the lists as they are in List of Catholic scientists. The two articles should not be left as they are and this is the weakest. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo was a cleric, in fact (canon of Brescia and Pisa, from 1630). However, he is not included on the list. -- 202.124.72.178 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There's a few promotional sentences that could be removed, but any bias that still remains is surely fixable. Lists which have any reasonable and objective inclusion criterion provide an additional way for people to access Wikipedia content. Any problem is with the introductory text, in my opinion. Deducing that the names of the moon craters show the 'Church's commitment to astronomy' can be reworded. I would rephrase the sentence to take out the last four words. I'd not want the title to be Contribution of Catholicism to science since we would then be asking if it was a net positive, and this could get us far afield. EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep after severe pruning to remove POV-gush. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep. Useful list with well-defined inclusion criterion. Nomination seems to be based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Serious pruning of the intro was desirable (I have now pruned it), and the list might be broadened to non-Catholic clerics; but that's not a matter for AfD. -- 202.124.72.178 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content of the article may violate WP:NPOV and may even be incorrect, but the topic itself is notable and relevant enough. --User:Kris159 (talk | legacy) 06:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the responses here and the recent changes made I think the AfD tag can be removed from the article. Since I have been the main editor of the article, however, I will let someone else make that edit.Akasseb (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:SNOW applies (and indeed that this should never have been nominated), but there has been one !vote for deletion (poorly explained though it is). I think that means the AfD has to run its course. -- 202.124.75.59 (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly new to this process. What is the normal course? Right now the AfD tag is a black eye on the article meant to call into question its credibility. It is fairly obvious that the IP user who nominated the article for deletion did so simply because he does not like it.Akasseb (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion lasts for 7 days and then an administrator, who, unlike me, has not commented to the discussion, will come along and close the discussion. It may be closed early if the consensus is clear. Meanwhile, could some one clarify my points above? Could this list of clerics be merged into the wider List of Catholic scientists? It seems to me that it could, so my !vote is for merge.--Bduke (Discussion) 22:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would argue against a merge; the important thing is that the figures here are clerics, while the other list is people who happen to be Catholic. Both lists are useful, although possibly the other list could be restricted to non-clerics. -- 202.124.72.127 (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too am against merging the articles. The list of cleric-scientists has a certain distinctness and clarity that must be preserved. The general list of Catholic scientists is intended to be all-encompassing. I would consider the idea of limiting the second list to lay Catholic scientists, but I think it works better as a master list (it just needs to be expanded).Akasseb (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a perfectly notable topic. Some of the list might be pruned, but AfD is not meant for pushing along the normal editing process. I can't see how anybody could look at this article and reasonably conclude that it violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, or WP:LIST for lack of notability. That R.C. clerics have been notable scientists is not new history, that is, this article is not an original idea and can be easily sourced if one searched online. Having been nominated at AfD is not a 'black eye' - there are plenty of GAs that have been nominated in the past for deletion; I even edited one article that went from speedy deletion to the front page's DYK section in three days -- although it is unfriendly. NPOV content can likewise be removed through the ordinary process. Perhaps the only remaining issue is that this article could become fodder for those who have the POV that the R.C. Church used to be unfriendly to science, then became friendly, but is no longer pro-science. For that issue, we must be concerned lest this article becomes a POV fork of the History of science, but concern does not translate into a mandate for deletion: that's why we watch pages. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction for the record: it took 12 days (not three) to go from proposed speedy deletion to Did You Know? Bearian (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several articles have gone from AfD to DYK. Bird Neighbors is one of the more recent. -- 202.124.75.87 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Normally I'd be a little skeptical of such a cross-combination of categories, but I do known that Jesuits and the like have played a significant role in astronomical observation and discovery. A good example is Angelo Secchi. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:55, 14 June 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. After the first relisting, the !votes were one merge and one delete. After the second relisting, there was a comment discussing the notability of the topic per reviews that have been written about the topic, one keep !vote and one delete !vote. After the third relisting, there was one weak keep and three keep !votes. Firstly, I'm aware that AfD closures are not based upon !vote counts, but in this case the consensus was to keep, because the keep arguments were stronger than the delete arguments. The first delete !vote is based upon the notion that reviews are not a measure of notability, particularly when there are only three, which appears to have been countered in the comment that followed it, which stated in part that reviews are functional toward topic notability when from reliable sources. The second delete !voter states that sources should be from "major sources" to qualify, such as "a major metropolitan daily", and that the reviews available are insufficient. However, WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (books) do not have this requirement. The last four !votes delineate that the topic has enough sources and enough reviews to meet WP:GNG. User:DGG initially !voted to merge, and then later !voted to keep: the keep !vote is being taken into consideration in this instance, because it was the latter of the two !votes. Lastly, WP:BOOK as cited in the nomination as a qualifier for deletion actually links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, and there is no project guideline on that page regarding book notability. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Blood Confession[edit]

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

Only one review does not meet WP:BOOK requirements for notability. The small number of libraries listing it is no indication of notability. The notability for book requirements simply state that any title with no or next to no library copies is automatically not notable barring some amazing coincidence. Based upon total lack of reliable sources it's clear it is not notable enough to have an article here. DreamGuy (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an article about the author I see three reviews, which by our accepted standard is notability, and the book is in 348 libraries according to WorldCat http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n2005-78259], making it mildly notable, though not famous. (dream Guy, "next to no copies" in this genre is numbers under 100; there's usually a match between reviews and library holdings, because public and school libraries buy primarily on the basis of the reviews in the review sources listed.) However, Libby has written a later book The king's rose which is considerably more important, with 578 holding libraries. Though we could therefore write an article on each, one on the author would seem the better choice here, and I will repurpose this article to that, if it is kept, using it as a basis and a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-notable. Reviews are not a measure of notability, certainly not only 3 reviews. Really, every book gets reviewed somewhere. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:45, 24 May 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, Sandstein 21:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, reviews are a measure of notability when they're done by sources that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. The first part of WP:NBOOK states "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Whether or not there's enough sources here to warrant keeping the article is another question, though. I had a bit of trouble deciding after I'd added all of the sources, which is why I haven't voted one way or another. But yes, reviews are a sign of notability as long as they're by reliable sources. There's a huge difference between reviews done by someone on Goodreads and someone who reviews for say, Strange Horizons or the School Library Journal. Saying that reviews can never show notability because everyone writes reviews is like saying that newspaper articles can never show notability because everyone somewhere has written an article in some format.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reviews for notability. Reviews are the substantial sources that make a book notable. What else could one expect to be written about a book? DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything significant about this book from any major source. The article cites a few reviews (although one of them is actually a review of another book by the same author, which mentions this one in passing). But they are not from anything we would consider a major source, such as a major metropolitan daily. Granted, such sources may not often take note of "young adult fiction" like this, but that just means that the book isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Google News found that review of the second novel (twice) and otherwise just a note about a local book signing. The other sources at the article are from I'll-review-anything blogs. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 1 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, Sandstein 21:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undoing my ~~"delete"~~ "no consensus" closure and relisting this discussion following a comment on my talk page. Sandstein 21:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to have just-enough suitable coverage in sources. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough reviews to meet GNG are currently present in the article. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This book has an adequate number of reviews and it is held in 348 Worldcat libraries as noted by DGG. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see that DGG has voted "Merge" and "keep". I wanted to strike out DGG's "merge" vote, but I can't yet, unless there's no problem. Anyway, there are reviews and a plot that could make this topic notable. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 14 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kitson & Partners[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CORP. Could also be spam by stealth? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at this time. There is one significant item of coverage, from the New York Times, but one significant item of coverage is not enough. Everything else I found, and everything else cited in the article, is routine local business coverage. It's possible the partnership could become more notable in the future, so perhaps a redirect to Syd Kitson should be considered in lieu of deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 16 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bending in Avatar: The Last Airbender[edit]

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

The article describes, in great detail, the various forms of magic portrayed in a TV series and related works. This is contrary to WP:GNG, as this aspect of the series does not seem to have been covered (in any comparable level of detail) in third-party reliable sources, and also contrary to WP:WAF, as it's entirely WP:IN-U plot summary. Such content is better presented in the corresponding fan wiki. Sandstein 21:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, entirely in-universe, sourced only to the episodes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reasons I've nominated many other Avatar-related articles for deletion/merging, i.e., in-universe, etc. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 21:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, have to agree with the nominator, this is material that is much more appropriate to the fan wiki that wikipedia. Current sourcing seems to be entirely 1st party products. Derekloffin (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I failed to find enough reliable sources that would prove that "bending" has real-world significance. What content there is could be in a setting or plot section of Avatar: The Last Airbender, or instead be discussed in detail in an appropriate wiki. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:31, 12 June 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} 00:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoggyRide[edit]

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

Non-notable product has not been the subject of sustained, independent coverage. DoggyRide is just one of many models of bicycle trailers on the market, which has only received very brief mention in various "product roundup" or "new product" capsule reviews in the bicycling press. See also Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. DoggyRide should be treated by reliable sources as significant in its own right beyond the mere fact that it is a bicycle trailer. The first deletion discussion was closed as merge, but instead Mattmontare (talk · contribs) commented out the {{Afd-mergeto}} tag after a few months, then Deskana (talk · contribs) deleted that after a few more months. Note that there is no particular reason for the article Bicycle trailer to mention DoggyRide or to provide a list of manufacturers of bike trailers, per WP:NOTCATALOG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 07:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above and WP:soap. Bjenks (talk) 02:50, 14 June 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Botín Art Centre[edit]

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

Speculative piece on unbuilt arts centre, no RS, PROD declined. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)>[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)>[reply]

Speedy delete copyvio (tagged as such). RichardOSmith (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: page has been deleted as copyvio, please close this AFD. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a copyvio (non-admin close). Singularity42 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Konpa Kreyol[edit]

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

Unsourced, overly-promotional article that does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Although it has a list of "studio albums", it does not appear to be credible or verifiable, and no actual studio is listed. Singularity42 (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - copyvio; so tagged. No comment on notability etc. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:11, 9 June 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 The A-List: New York. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaden James[edit]

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

no references, all links are to social media. claim to fame: one song used in a tv show, some music on rotation on mtv. no references that i could find. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can vouch that "A Boy Like Me" is the theme song for The A-List. I was able to verify that via a streaming video of the series. However, that part of the WP:ARTIST is kind of tricky in that if this is the only thing that can be verified in any way, it doesn't exactly give notability enough for an article unless there's other things to show notability. I will say that if we do manage to find sources for this, the article needs to be almost completely rewritten to be more encyclopedic and neutral. Right now it's reading more like a fanpage than anything else.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the blatantly promotional text. To be honest, that might've been a wasted effort since the notability scale is tipped against him. I'll see what sources I can find.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I just discovered that the entire block of text was copied directly from James' blog and a press release, editing it saved this from being a copyvio.[1] I'm going to guess that this was all added by James himself or a publicist.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to The A-List: New York. The only thing I can even verify through a halfway reliable source is that one of his songs was used as a theme song to the A-List shows. I can't find anything reliable or non-primary that verifies any of the other claims in this article. This is probably just a case of WP:TOOSOON since James is on the very cusp of being recognized, but has yet to actually be so. There's no reliable sources that I can find and a search on MTV's site doesn't even bring him up as an artist or a blip on the radar. While I know that sometimes the smaller musicians slip through the cracks, if he was playing on their station on a regular national basis at any point in time, his name would be in their website somewhere and it isn't. A redirect to the A-List article might be good, although there's two seasons, but I imagine that the first season would be the best one to redirect to. James doesn't pass the strict notability guidelines at this point in time, purely because there's no reliable sources to back it up and the theme song alone isn't enough to warrant an article. (Even in the artist notability guidelines it recommends that if this is all they're known for or can be verified, that they're just redirected to the TV show article.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The A-List: New York. As noted above, this person meets criterion 10 of WP:MUSICBIO, which states: "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article." He does not appear to meet any of the guideline's other criteria, or WP:GNG, so redirecting to the TV show that uses his song as its theme seems reasonable. Gongshow ^Talk 06:01, 10 June 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. It's still unclear on whether or not User:79.97.57.92 is the subject and it would have been better if she were to have contacted OTRS but per the second part of WP:BIODEL and the one delete !vote based on "straight notability", I'm going to go ahead and ring this up. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karishmeh Felfeli[edit]

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

This article was PRODed by User:79.97.57.92, however I think this may be controversial so I've XFDed it instead. I appoligise if this was the wrong thing to do. Following is the reason User:79.97.57.92 stated for PROD: "as the person about whom this article is written, I would prefer to not have information about myself online. I have no idea who created this page, but for personal and professional reasons I would prefer not to have a wiki presence. I am happy to verify my ID in any way necessary." Callanecc (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming User:79.97.57.92 is Karishmeh Felfeli than I believe WP:BIODEL is the most applicable policy. It would seem thtat the primary question would be whether Felfeli is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure". Callanecc (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The identity of the PRODding user as the subject of the article is apparently confirmed below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BIODEL has "people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known." At a brief glance, there is enough material out there to permit an article, but "not generally well known" seems a fair summary, so if she wants out, that's her choice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chiswick Chap do you mean WP:NPF? Callanecc (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both WP:NPF and WP:BIODEL apply. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good that's what I thought :). Thanks, Callanecc (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would seem rather odd to post oneself on Facebook and then say one "would prefer to not have information about myself online." •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my comment above. Apparently that Facebook page is about the subject, not by the subject, and is extracted from this Wikipedia article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not have a facebook page, nor do I use facebook. I clicked the link above, to find that it is a facebook 'wikipedia' page. Again, requesting deletion of the wiki entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.57.92 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be clear on my position. I believe that a delete would in in accordance with WP:BIODEL and WP:NPF in that it would seem that Felfeli is "relatively unknown" (WP:BIODEL) and is "not generally well known" (WP:NPF). Given that, to the best of our knowledge, Felfeli has requested deletion my opinion is that it should be deleted. Assuming there are no "keeps", in accordance with WP:BIODEL the article can be deleted. Callanecc (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and not because of BIODEL; I don't think he's notable enough for an article at all. The sourcing isn't great, and it doesn't really establish any substantial notability, so I'm voting delete purely on notability grounds. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:27, 17 June 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Brigham Laceste[edit]

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

This chess player has not enough high-level achievements to be notable. SyG (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC) SyG (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article says that he was Philippine national champion, which would qualify, but I suspect that it was a youth title. The link to the reference for that is dead, so I couldn't check. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Sasata (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable....William 14:35, 14 June 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 Dimebag Darrell#Death. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Gale[edit]

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

Fails notability per WP:EVENT. Delete, or rename or merge into Dimebag Darrell Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E, then redirect to the Abbott article. Gale himself was a very non-notable person and his "fame" relies solely on the fact that he murdered a person of mid-level notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per Niteshift36. Dimebag Darrell was notable but not, in my judgment, enougb of a celebrity that we ought to have a separate biography of his murderer. See WP:PERP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Just some random weirdo who had issues. I was a fan of Dimebag and the crime was terrible, but his murderer doesn't have the notoriety of, say, Mark David Chapman or Sirhan Sirhan. I was a bit surprised to see that this was a blue link, and reassured to see that it had already been nommed when I clicked on it. No objections to a redirect.

--Bongwarrior (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - on one hand, the murder seems to be significant and has coverage by multiple reliable sources. On the other...it does not seem to be very notable. But I'm leaning "Keep" at the moment. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 02:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Correa[edit]

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

No significant coverage found, and fails WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vladimir Correa was one of the most popular gay pornographic actors of the late 1980s and early 1990s. He started a new trend in pornography of a gay pornographic actor appearing in bisexual films. He often was featured as the star nude dancer at various pornographic theatres that had nude dancers in major metropolitan areas. The many films he appeared in (listed in the article) were best-sellers. His dark "Latino Lover" looks and muscular physique is part of what made him so popular. The gay pornographic awards did not come into existence until the late 1990s so that is apparently why he wasn't nominated for one. There are many important regular actors who never got Academy Awards. The article is very well referenced with many third party sources. THERE IS NO REASON TO DELETE THIS ARTICLE. Keraunos (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AVN Awards covered gay porn from 1986 to 1998, during most of Correa's career (1986–2001). If Vladimir Correa made these great contributions to porn, reliable or even semi-reliable sources would have been around to acknowledge them. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I pointed out in the initial AFD, no claim to meeting WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject satisfies the GNG. The "references" go entirely to unreliable sources, sources which simply recite castlists or otherwise provide no significant information on the subject, or sources which mention the subject in passing without providing any encyclopedic information. This is a BLP bolstered by bogus sourcing. As Gene93k accurately notes above, the porn industry provided its own recognition of performers in same-sex films during the period the performer was active (see also List of gay pornography awards. GBooks search turns up no significant references to the subject in histories of the genre, although such works have supported claims of notability for other performers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with regret. Although I would like to think that Correa had notability, and I agree that he was popular during his career, I cannot find any way in which he meets WP:PORNBIO. I'm all for inclusion of gay performers but I just can't muster a reasonable argument to retain this article. Ubelowme (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you all are applying the WP:PORNBIO policy too rigidly. Gay pornography was not a highly organized industry before the late 1990s like it is now. It was hard to get an AVN award because then gay pornography was a subgenre of the main pornography industry. There were not huge numbers of awards offered like there are now. The many popular, well known, and significant gay pornographic movie stars of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s would not be able to meet the WP:PORNBIO criteria so there should be different criteria for those whose careers took place in the 1980s and before. Keraunos (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anything Keraunos says is verifiable, it needs to be sourced and added to the article, not the AFD.

Hipocrite (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- According to the AVN Award article, there were no gay awards given out before 1990 at all. After that, there were only about four or five gay awardd per year until 1998 when the GayVN Awards began to be given out in large numbers. So the WP:PORNBIO criteria are invalid before 1998 and need to be changed. Keraunos (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Until this policy is changed we need to use it. Which means that porn bios of Gay potn stars are not considered notable. 15:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete this article - it has no place in an encyclopedia and does not pass WP:GNG nor makes a clear statement of who the article is realy about - what they guys name? I don't think there is any reason to keep this article if this basic question cannot be adressed since it is impossible to verify who this article is about.OrenBochman 15:25, 15 June 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. Notability is not inherited, either from the band, the album, or the competition. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every Day (Sick Puppies Song)[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:NSONGS guidelines. noq (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It definitely meets WP:NSONGS guidelines as the song was very popular on Australia's biggest indie radio station, Triple J, produced a music video and even helped the band win the prestigious annual Triple J Unearthed band competition in 2001, therefore making the single notable (not to mention there's an exclusive track on the single). Not only is it notable, there is new content in the article. There is also no use of personal knowledge in the article whatsoever. (Splasher9), 9 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splasher9 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does it meet WP:NSONGS? I am seeing nothing to back up your claims above - which do not appear in the article either. I am finding nothing to show Triple J Unearthed is "prestigious", there seems very little about it on google - especially considering it is supposed to be an on-line competition now. Having a video made does not make it notable. noq (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're not finding much about it on Google? Did you check Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unearthed_(talent_contest). In the article you can see that Sick Puppies won it, so I don't see how that claim is not backed up. I will admit that a music video does not make a song notable, bad point by me. I have not yet updated the article to include the competition, but I was finding reliable sources and planning to add it in before this was filed for deletion. The contest has been going for 17 years counting in one form or another, is run by Australia's biggest indie/alternative radio station, the winners always receive fair media coverage and only in 2006 did it change to an online competition, so for an Australian music competition, it's prestigious no-doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splasher9 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a reliable source - you cannot use another article to establish notability for this article. Besides, that article does not have a reference to the group winning it or this song in particular being instrumental in that. noq (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSONGS, notability is not inherited from the band or the radio station. The two references are a blog and a link through to a place to buy... --Richhoncho (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/unearthed/past/ That site confirms that Sick Puppies won the competition, and also, only 2 songs had been made from the trio at the time of their win (not including tracks off of their extremely rare first EP): Nothing Really Matters and Every Day. So it's obvious that Every Day played a major role in Sick Puppies Unearthed win. I am not saying that the song is notable because of the radio station, rather the popular competition that the station held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splasher9 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That makes no mention of the song at all. You are surmising that it played a major role. Having no idea how the competition is judged or was at the time I cannot make that conclusion. And again, I have seen nothing to suggest the competition itself is prestigious. noq (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources that cover this song in detail, and it doesn't seem useful as a redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:00, 17 June 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something to Dance For[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, as it has no charts, no covers by notable artists, and has won no awards. Only "source" is a blog entry labeled "gossip" in a teen mag website. Attempts to redirect it, as indicated by WP:NSONGS, have been thwarted by fans. —Kww(talk) 12:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources to prove notability. Sumsum2010·T·C 17:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is also a borderline WP:CSD#G5. It was created by a sock of Jerome0012, and it's hard to describe the contributions of the other editors as "substantial". If I hadn't already nominated the article, I would have deleted it when I blocked RomeAntic14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Kww(talk) 00:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CSD#G5. Don't redirect. Only substantive contributor is a banned user, very little info by others that has remained in article. Review section is based on a gossip mag. Other sections are mostly unreferenced. Article creator has habit of WP:PLAGIARISM - using free content without attribution so don't trust any of the content not backed by references - I caught one at [2] - suspicious of more. It would be best that if the topic becomes notable the article be re-created from scratch and not use any of the existing content. And it fails WP:NSONGS. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable song. Although editor has at least attempted to make a decent article unlike all too many tracklist and infobox efforts, but the sources are of no use.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:59, 12 June 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. Delete as WP:BLP vio, and WP:CFORK (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life of Jennifer Lopez[edit]

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

This page, an unnecessary WP:CFORK from Jennifer Lopez, is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of tabloid tittle-tattle about Ms. Lopez's personal life. Wikipedia is not an online version of OK Magazine (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) and these relationships aren't notable simply because JLo was involved in them (WP:NOTINHERITED). SplashScreen (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main Jennifer Lopez article is probably too long, and this seems to have been created to help solve that problem, as well as to avoid having separate articles on all her boyfriends/husbands/partners. I'm not sure if this is the best way to partition it into separate articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed through the "Life and career" section of Jennifer Lopez and most, if not all, of the relevant information on her personal life is already included there. SplashScreen (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE does the nominator referst to - the in-universe fiction, the lyrics of songs or the listing of statistics? That policy and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER are bad policies to cite here, since none of them apply to delete this article - on the contrary, NOTNEWSPAPER is against single-time events (which this article is not) but instead it allows for "the enduring notability of persons and events" (which this article covers). This article looks like a biography, not a diary. Per WP:ARTIST(4c), J.Lo "has won significant critical attention" not only for her work but for her personal life. Together with ample coverage per WP:GNG the topics merits an article of its own if it has enough material, as it happens. I think moving most personal content from Jennifer Lopez and placing it here, thus separating personal and artistic life, and leaving only a summary is a very good option, better than deleting everything. Diego (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE I'm evoking is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The three examples you state are just that; examples. Secondly, you're mistaken; nobody is disputing that JLo isn't notable, bu her personal life is not individually notable. The "significant critical attention" raised in WP:ARTIST relates to awards and the like, not her giving interview about who she is dating. And we shouldn't have seperate articles on singers' careers and personal lives; JLo's personal life is evident because of her career, not in spite of it. There's a symbiosis there and that is why this article is irrelevant. Your arguments seem to break WP:VALINFO, WP:BHTT and WP:LOSE. SplashScreen (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid split-off article with sufficient size to stand alone. At best, this would be merged back to Jennifer Lopez as a necessary part of her biography, but I see nothing significant that can be trimmed from this to reduce its size. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal relationships of Paul McCartney, closed as keep, a group nomination that included similar articles for McCartney, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, and Frank Sinatra. As the closing admin there explained, the main issue is whether there is enough reliably sourced information to justify splitting from the main biographical article, particularly where so many of the relationships are with other notable people (in Lopez's case, Ben Affleck, Sean Combs, Marc Anthony) and are undeniably high-profile. The nom's dismissive characterization of this as "tabloid tittle-tattle" suggests WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and is inaccurate in any event where the sources are not tabloid gossip rags but instead mainstream magazines and news outlets. This isn't merely transitory news either, because any biography of Lopez would include this info even though many of these relationships are now years old.
There seem to be many WP editors who feel that info on anything other than accomplishments is not encyclopedic, as if biographies should be purged of anything personal. But the focus on this kind of personal information is not specific to entertainers or celebrities, nor limited to tabloid gossip; see Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, Ann Rutledge (believed to be Lincoln's first love, notable for no other reason), Personal relationships of Alexander the Great, Personal relationships of James VI and I... If someone is notable, we want a full and rich portrait of them as human beings, not just their resumés. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could go on about how the concept of the "Beatles wives", and the vast amount of research and cultural comment that surrounds them, makes McCartney's relationships independently notable. There is a distinct difference between this and the amount of boyfriends that JLo has had. The same can be said about the relationships of the historical figures that you mention. It's not about whether or not I like or dislike a subject (I happen to have a few JLo songs on my iPod, as it happens) and it's not about whether a subject has had a documented love life, it's about whether the subjects's love life is independently notable for a seperate article. Jennifer Lopez fails this test. All notable details surrounding her dating history and other personal issues are currently documented in the main article, so this isn't even a question of a merge. This is just an unnecessary content fork. If we need to make the Jennifer Lopez article smaller, I suggest we look at the Legacy section as this in itself seems broad enough to sustain its own article. A "full and rich" portrait of people's lives? WP:BIO says we should create articles on people who are, or whose lives are, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". JLo's personal life is none of these on its own, whereas the opposite can be said of McCartney et al.

In short, you need to assume good faith, remember that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and note that Wikipedia is not about WP:EVERYTHING. Whilst you've presented a fairly interesting rant, it doesn't seem to contain a strong enough argument to keep this article other than "you just don't like her", "the JLo page is too long" or "we have one for Him out of The Beatles". SplashScreen (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even each of non-notable relationships is suitable for this article, as this could be a detailed notable life about these non-notable subjects. Also, List of The Price Is Right pricing games consists of non-notable subjects that benefit themselves as parts of a list. Whether each relationship is notable is one thing, but nominating a prosed list of Jennifer's relationship for deletion for lacking "significance" is just an attempt to suppress history. Whether she's a "ho", her relationships are temporarily notable, or any other is insignificant to people is irrelevant. Sure, it might fail other guidelines, but this topic (I mean, a collaboration about Jennifer's non-notable relationship) passes WP:GNG and WP:notability. It has significant coverage, reliable sources, and widespread criteria to pass GNG. --George Ho (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that articles such as List of The Price Is Right pricing games are a consequence of WP:PLOTSUM as their details are relevant in establishing a wider subject of a source picture. The opposite applies here, as false reports about JLo "struggling" with pregnancy has absolutely no impact on what she is primarily notable for. SplashScreen (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the main article and split off something else. Seriously, who thought that products and endorsements were more important than her personal life? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why merging? Which part are too insignificant as part of this article? --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misunderstand. I believe this is too significant to shunt aside (at least to the press and her fans) and works better within the context in the main article. I'd rather split off less important stuff like her commercial interests and philanthropy and maybe her legacy. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think postdlf here basically covered why this page should be kept. I don't quite understand why I wasn't notified that this was nominated for deletion, seeing as how I created the article. I think it should also be noted that this is the second article I created that this user has specifically nominated for deletion in the past two weeks alone. Also, as a main contributor to Jennifer Lopez-related articles, this article and her main article are currently undergoing huge construction; have been for a while. The article was in such bad shape previously. Not all information present in this article is also present in her main article. There's many valid articles like this on Wikipedia; with this being no different. Besides the fact that J.Lo is known for her amount of high profile relationships, the article also contains information about her children, legal issues and the ever so controversial Scientology. — Statυs (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a bit of a non-argument. "There's many valid articles like this on Wikipedia" - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And maybe JLo is known for having lots of boyfriends, but this is not why she is notable. And "the ever so controversial Scientology"? That's a WP:NPOV, and possibly WP:RNPOV, violation right there. SplashScreen (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, scorch the earth, drive a stake through the ashes, pave it over, and put a parking lot on top of it. An appalling violation of BLP principles. Wikipedia is not a directory of celebrity hooks or a repository for the tabloidery that passes for celebrity journalism. Any editor who believes that content like "Combs and Lopez were rumored to be back together following her split from Cris Judd, which was untrue" or "It was also rumored that Lopez and Anthony became Scientologists during that period with the help of Angelo Pagan, the husband of The King of Queens actress and Scientologist Leah Remini" or "Lopez's relationship with actor Ben Affleck ended from overexposure" (which turns out to have no reliable sources, despite a pile of gossipy references that turn out to say no such thing) belong in this encyclopedia should be topic banned from editing BLPs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT; maybe the whole religion section should go as well as other portions, I have no strong opinion either way. But that's not the whole article, and we don't delete entire articles because of such specific content issues that are dealt with through normal editing and discussion. Her relationships with Affleck, Combs, and Anthony at a minimum are without dispute verifiable and were high profile; she has interviewed about all of them multiple times, they have been commented on extensively over a period of at least a decade by reliable sources that are not tabloids, and they have even affected the content her work (see music video for "Jenny from the Block"). Whether or not we like celebrity journalism, it exists and is an indelible part of modern mass media and is not merely tabloid rumor mongering, such that her personal life itself does easily satisfy WP:GNG apart from her career as a topic.
  And the media coverage on her itself has been the topic of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, even academic studies. See Google Books search result, producing the following examples on the first two pages alone: Icons of American Popular Culture: From P.T. Barnum to Jennifer Lopez ("Time noted her willingness to appear on talk shows even if questions about boyfriend Combs came up..."; an obvious counter to any WP:BLP concerns for her privacy about these relationships); Latina/o Stars in U.S. Eyes: the Making and Meanings of Film and TV Stardom ("...in this chapter I explore Jennifer Lopez's career and the publicity she received as a window into shifts in Latina/o opportunity and status in Hollywood, the United States, and increasingly, in global media..."); Media, Minorities, and Meaning: A Critical Introduction ("This study draws upon and extends Guzman and Valdivia's (2004) analysis of media presentation and press coverage of three Latina icons (Selma Hayek, Frida Kahlo, Jennifer Lopez)"; Black Cultural Traffic: Crossroads in Global Performance and Popular Culture ("The media coverage of one of the most public and successful hip-hop entrepreneurs, Sean Combs, demonstrates this ... including trials for criminal wrongdoing and romantic involvement with Puerto Rican superstar Jennifer Lopez"). So the article could even be further expanded with this academic metacommentary on the media commentary on her personal life. But even if it turned out that the article can be trimmed down to the point at which its verifiable and encyclopedic content is not sufficiently large that it can't be merged back into the article, fine, but that calls for an editing decision scalpel, not a deletion decision wrecking ball. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst you've made a nice argument for why this information should be included in Wikipedia, you haven't made a good argument for why this information should be included in its own article on Wikipedia. SplashScreen (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZE, as a WP:SPLIT from the main biographical article. And if it should be included in Wikipedia somewhere in any event, than per WP:ATD we don't have a deletion candidate. postdlf (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That "SIZE" guideline... led List of Codename: Kids Next Door episodes to be split terribly, and not any of us know what to do with split articles. It suffers from fancruft mostly and shoddy arrangements. I tried to help minimize use of Template:very long, but somehow sufferably long articles and badly-arranged articles get in the way, and.... I don't know. --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as redundant to the Jennifer Lopez article. This page is, in essence, about Lopez, and there is not much of a reason to have it separate from the main page. There are statements like "In January 2011 during an interview on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Lopez said that she wants to get pregnant "a thousand more times"", and "Lopez was seen without her ring, and it was later confirmed that the 18-month romance ended on January 20, 2004, just three days after Affleck returned to Los Angeles from the Sundance Film Festival", which is suggesting violation of WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. The article as a whole is just tabloid gossip, etc. — removal of it would prove to be completely redundant to Jennifer Lopez. Till I Go Home ^talk ^edits 04:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting Postdlf: "The media coverage on her itself has been the topic of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, even academic studies." The media is a huge part of J.Lo's life, as it is even stated in the article that it put a negative look on her career. Hardly any of the information located in this article is actually present on Jennifer Lopez, as it was completely removed from the article when this one was created. Some of it was re-added, not by me I might add. I say you get over the fact there are a few questionable sentences (and forces) in the article and look at the entire thing. — Statυs (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am entitled to express my opinion! You are being aggressive for no apparent reason. I have striked my delete and will change to keep if the article gets a haircut, and thus no longer violates WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Till I Go Home ^talk ^edits 10:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not being aggressive; I'm just stating a fact. Just because an article has some few questionable sources does not mean that it should be deleted. Also, you are free to give the article a haircut if you ever so wish to. I've trimmed it down myself a bit. — Statυs (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lopez has so much diverse personal life that is enough for creating sorely a stand alone article. — Tomica (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note It should also be noted that redirects of men who she was in a relationship that do not have an article with redirect to here. — Statυs ≠ 22:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or selectively merge back to the main article. The existence of this article is pretty much incompatible with WP:BLP's principle that "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid." Any aspects of her personal life that are encyclopedically important must be able to be condensed to a length that fits into her main article. Sandstein 05:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"With regard for the subject's privacy" would imply that Jennifer Lopez hasn't admitted her relationships yet. "Written conservatively" is either vague or ambiguous and is not totally limited to "size"; nevertheless, even self-unpublished "truth" must not be included in this article under that policy. If Lopez hasn't publicized "truth" about her own love life, then some content must be removed from this article. Even if small, how would the main article itself be split up and summarized? Still, I don't think a violation of WP:BLP is a reason to delete this article --George Ho (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into her main article. We should not have Personal life of forks for celebrities. While some details on their personal lives are relevant, an entire article is likely to just turn into a collection of trivial minutiae and fancruft, and is an unfair imposition on their privacy to boot. This kind of stuff belongs in tabloid journalism, not WP. Quite simply, no article entitled "Personal life of X" should be permitted, for all Xs. Maratrean (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Only it has been shown extensively that this topic is not merely one of "tabloid journalism" but has been covered by mainstream media sources, and even academic books. It's also off the mark to urge deletion on the basis of concern for privacy for someone who has purposefully lived their life (and not merely their career) in the public eye. We're talking about one of the most highly publicized celebrities of the past couple decades, and even that publicity itself has been the subject of significant commentary. Your last two sentences really make your comment seem like it's just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. postdlf (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break - Relist[edit]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note: I've relisted this for a few reasons; there is clearly no consensus at the moment, BLP is relevant here, and the article has been heavily edited during the AfD. I suspect that a simple No Consensus would not be helpful to what is an important AfD. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should not have "personal life of .." articles, particularly of living persons, as they are a target for vandalism that goes against the BLP policies. What needs to be said can be in the main article. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That an article might be WP:SUSCEPTIBLE to policy violations is no argument for deleting it; repeat vandalism is instead grounds for protection. Particularly not when you've stated you think the content actually belongs on WP, though in the main article, which makes this actually a merge suggestion and thus not an AFD concern per WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question to those who vote delete or merge How would either of those things be done? Jennifer Lopez is in chronological order of events. It would not be accurate to just, say, take each relationship and paste it somewhere within the article. Some of this is also irrelevant to her main article, but still has importance to her life, such as the bump that she found on her child's head days after birth, which inspired her to create a charity.
Bduke, before you leave your "vote", you should really actually read the article for yourself. I've also added a little bit of information on the influence/effect her personal life has had on her career. If you flat out don't believe in "personal life of..." articles, then I suggest you go nominate all the ones that exist for deletion and see what will happen. With, if you already didn't know already happened previously. Statυs (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article, but thanks for pointing out the other articles and their AfD discussion. I entirely agree with the nominator of that AfD discussion. These articles give overdue weight to what is largely gossip. It is certainly possible to give enough details in the primary article and in this case that is already essentially done. Some information can also be given in articles on the persons who the subject has had relationships with. Nevertheless it is clear that there is a sharp division of opinion on this matter. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ojani Noa, for example, does not have an article, since he is not notable outside of his relationship with Lopez. They have taken each other to court multiple times, including a tell-all book he wanted to write about her and a sex tape he wanted to sell. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete an article. Clearly, there is enough relevance for a separate topic. Where would the commentary go on her relationships? It's not useless bits of information. Information such as "Lopez met Cuban actor Ojani Noa at a restaurant in Miami Beach, Florida, where he was working as a waiter. The two began dating shortly afterwards, with Noa proposing to Lopez on October 28, 1996 in San Antonio, Texas with a marquis-cut diamond ring." is not present in her main article because it would make it too large. But that does not make it still relevant information. Her main article isn't even at a complete state; with only "1969–94: Childhood and early work" being written to completion. The rest of the sections still require expansion on her career, as you can most, most of it just states "in blah year Lopez starred in blah movie". This is a valid article I am in the midst of expanding while studying for my final exams to please people, which clearly isn't happening because they just don't like it. Statυs (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have a touch of ownership of this article. The quote you give makes my point. The main article already has "Lopez married Cuban-born Ojani Noa, who she met while he worked as a waiter in a Miami restaurant; they were divorced by January 1998". I am not even sure that "while he worked as a waiter in a Miami restaurant" is needed there, although the date of the wedding should be there. The date of the engagement and the ring is not encyclopedic. We are not writing a biography. We are writing an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should give concise facts and point to sources where the reader can get more information. It does not have to cover everything, nor should it. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, let me get this straight: first you come in here with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and now you are accusing me of article ownership? If you couldn't already tell, users are coming in this AfD and stating what they don't like about the article and doing nothing about it. It is not my fault that nobody is trying to assist me with the article. I would like you to enlighten me on how that is showing article ownership. I'd like to see some evidence of the ways I am showing such acts. I would love for someone to help assist me with this article, but no one seems to really care. How is that information not relevant? Lopez later employed him at a restaurant she opened, and fired him not soon after. Which turned into to a lawsuit. Statυs (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It passes WP:GNG, without question. The amount of ink spilled and bytes used to chronicle the personal life of Jennifer Lopez exceeds that devoted to some entire ancient civilizations. Allow discussion to continue after AfD as to merger of content.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that this AFD is relisted, even after long talks. I stroke ~~"keep"~~ because, sometimes, not all subtopics benefit a stand-alone article, and because other arguments may have some merit, even if some evidence looks flimsy. I won't vote delete because... this article needs cleanup for those who oppose deletion or merger. --George Ho (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i would just like to comment that the reason this page was created was because there is too much relevant information regarding her personal life. Status created this article so that it wouldn't get out of hand. Only the extremely important things (marriages, divorces, children, notable relationship) has been actually summed up in the article. If we went to merge this again with her main article, it would be much too long and completely stupid. I don't know if you know this, but lawsuits, background information, relationships, marriages, children, religion, etc all are very relevant, especially for JLo. Her personal life is a very big focus. I see many have complained about issues in the article (various paragraphs and sentences) yet none of you care to remove it or do anything about it? Even if the parts you don't like are removed and this information is moved back into her main article, it's just too much..... the content is deserving of its own page. Like it or not. And the subject is of extreme relevance and interest to the public; that's fact not assumption. With a little bit of work done here and there, it's totally fine. −SoapJar 08:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least this situation is different from murders of Jennifer Hudson's Chicago family, which lacks independent notability. Speaking of religion, I don't see substantial information about it in the main page and this subpage. Maybe you haven't looked at history log, have you? --George Ho (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Unfortunately i have been non-active on wiki for a few days and i failed to see that the section is no longer there. However, from what i remember it was there and religion is extremely important... so you pick out the tiny wrong in what i have said and address that rather then all my other points? Hmm... −SoapJar 05:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The personal life should be an integral part of the bio. Even if all this is considered encyclopedic, it would still fit into the main article. And I consider the additional detail here about as non-encyclopedic as one can get. The detailed gossip and quotes about her relationships is tabloid material, and the relevant principle is NOT FANSITE. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The section of Personal life of Jennifer Lopez are 1 Relationships, 2 Children, 3 Influence on career, and 4 Media influence. None of those sections align with any section in the Jennifer Lopez article. There never was is enough text in a given subtopic in in the Jennifer Lopez article to merit its own article. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Summary style. Editing requires making hard choices about what gets into and what stays out of an article. Allowing multiple Jennifer Lopez articles sidesteps that process. Wikipedia works on consensus, not avoiding consensus building. If you want 1 Relationships, 2 Children, 3 Influence on career, and/or 4 Media influence section coverage on Jennifer Lopez, you're going to need to come to a consensus on the Jennifer Lopez article talk page to add that to the Jennifer Lopez article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So your argument is that no biography should span more than one article? Your statement that "None of those sections align with any section in the Jennifer Lopez article." is because it was split-off without summary paragraphs being retained for the overall content. Which can and should be fixed. And in any event, you and DGG above you are really calling for selective merger, not deletion, as you both think this should be trimmed and integrated back into the main article. postdlf (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not seeing any useful information in the 'Personal life of Jennifer Lopez' article that already isn't in the 'Jennifer Lopez' article. The consensus does not exist to add 1 Relationships, 2 Children, 3 Influence on career, and/or 4 Media influence sections into the Jennifer Lopez article, so it can't be "fixed". 'Personal life of Jennifer Lopez' is the cutting room floor content that gets left behind as top importance articles improve to B-class. Even if enquiring minds want to know, it benefits the encyclopedia to have editors make the tough editorial decisions on what gets in and what stays out of the article so that it can move up in class. The topic coverage only needs to be a representative survey of the relevant literature and the article need only stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. One group of editors external to the article forcing content into the article over the objections of another group of editors via spin-in isn't the spinoff discussed in Wikipedia:Summary style. The groups should come together on the article talk page and make editorial decisions on consensus outcome. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "The consensus does not exist to add..." There's no such consensus against and never has been, nor do you need a demonstrated consensus prior to adding content to an article. Regardless, this article was split off from the main article by User:Status in the first place, not as a prelude to deleting it, but because of its size; it was a split off, not a "spin in" as you seem to think. So none of your comment makes sense in light of the actual edit history here, nor in light even of many of the deletion comments here, which say this belongs back in the main article. postdlf (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and any other "Personal life of ..." article fork. That's a terrible idea and precedent. Biographies should include all aspects of the lives of the subjects: the personal, the professional, the artistic, the financial, etc., since these subjects are often intertwined. Would you take Yoko Ono out of the John Lennon article? Bill Clinton out of the Hillary Clinton article? Joe DiMaggio out of the Marilyn Monroe article? It's absurd. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As with any split-off article, there should be a summary paragraph on her personal life in the main bio, which can easily be fixed by adding one. Deleting this will not accomplish that, and maintaining this as a stand-alone article does not interfere with that. postdlf (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The current main article already seems to have the important parts of her personal life integrated into the chronology – I see mentions of Combs, Judd, Affleck, and Anthony, for example, as well as the "Bennifer" expression, the most expensive celebrity photo ever of the twins, and so forth. That's the best solution of all and the one I use in all the biographies that I'm the main author of. Then there's no need for either a "Personal life" section or a "Personal life of ..." subarticle. As for the added detail that the subarticle provides, merge it back into the main article chronology if it's really necessary, but some of it (such as the lengthy quotes, or the exact weight and time of birth of the twins) seems unnecessary to be anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the other hand, Category:Personal relationships by individual already has 10 articles in it, including two that are GA (on McCartney and Jackson). I hadn't realized there were any. So maybe this ship has already sailed ... Wasted Time R (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was already decided last year. Statυs (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Jennifer Lopez, but after a significant trimming of that article and this article have been performed. Remember: we are a tertiary source, and should be summarizing information. I can believe there's certainly enough media attention on her to generate more than 180k of text, but this is not summarizing, it's a timeline. There is a lot of excess information. There's a lot of information that can be offloaded to her albums and other media for example. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excess of information? Please show me what information is fluff. Statυs (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not fluff, it's just excessive and duplicative. Trying to read through the chronological biography is getting a combination of her personal life and how her works were received, which should be on the actual album/movie pages, not this page, at least in the bio section. That's extremely awkward to make any sense of. Her varied professional entertainer aspects seem to beg this article to break out her musical aspects to a single section, her actress parts to another, etc., and leaving just bare personal life details (and how/when they intersect with her career milestones to get a sense of timing). The bio should be less a timeline and more a capture of broad strokes of her career. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and burn with fire. Wikipedia is not the tabloids. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jennifer Lopez per WP:NOTTABLOID, WP:BLPGOSSIP. Having a separate article for this subject matter gives it undue weight. The article length concerns of the main article can be addressed by splitting out other content, e.g. Career of Jennifer Lopez, List of songs recorded by Jennifer Lopez, etc. as recently suggested by George Ho. -- Trevj (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you suggest something like Paul McCartney's musical career (but for both acting and music career)? Artistry could also be included in there. I think basically, this article needs to stay as it is for the time being until it be decided on what to do. Then we can deal with anything else. Statυs (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and nom. This is also classic fancruft, not worthy of an encyclopedia, soucred mostly by People magazine and the like. If someone will do the work, a smerger is also acceptable to me, per Masem and contra The Bushranger. TMI, as my students would say. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as acceptable content fork. I'm not going to check the WP:SOURCES but they seem sufficient.

WP:UNDUE#Point of view forks states: "All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic. ...This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article.
The WP:CONTENTFORKING guideline states: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. ...This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."
The WP:CONTENTFORKING section discussing WP:SPINOFF states: "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. ...Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. This can happen when a particular controversial incident gets a lot of attention from editors representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced. This kind of detailed examination of a single incident in a general article will usually be considered to give Undue Weight to the incident so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate section and just have a summary in the main article. ...Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation"

Essentially, the notability is already accrued to Lopez, and this is a spinoff of the already-notable Jennifer Lopez article. If I wanted to learn about Lopez, I would be glad for this material to be offloaded from the main article. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on principle as a content fork of the main article, which should cover this in the context of Lopez' whole life/works. Having this as a standalone perhaps risks creasing a magnet for undue emphasis leading to a failure of NPOV. As a BLP this isn't acceptable and the policy should trump the GNG in this case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is clearly not a content Fork. It does not present a new point of view. Just a plit of the article across multiple pages. OracleB (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)— OracleB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't think that anyone is disputing that this is a content fork. What we're here to debate is a) whether the scope of this article is worthy enough to sustain this division and b) whether the subject matter has already been sufficently surmised in the parent article. SplashScreen (talk) 18:02, 21 June 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. Keep, but barely. I think Bearian's statement says it best (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Kosoy[edit]

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

A "video game industry professional". Appears sockpuppetry has been going on. In an old version, only two of the five refs actually mention Kosoy and one of the refs is an interview. I removed a Moby games ref as Moby refs are unreliable. Current revision has only one non ref. There is no reliable and independent references that go into detail about Kosoy and very little mention anything at all. Prod was contested. Here is the last version before SPAs/sockpuppets went to town Bgwhite (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Bgwhite (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to find sources about this guy, and while I found bits here and there that mentioned his name, I was unable to find any in-depth coverage of him. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

If this ends up deleted, it'll probably be time to also look at William Todd Tribell and Digital Capital Corporation.
I'm not sure who you're referring to as "SPAs/sockpuppets"; I dearly hope that I'm not included! So far as I can tell, the only new COI editor that's shown up to add fluff to this article is Derek3422 (talk · contribs).
- Are you planning on filing an SPI case? If so, the other SPA's I've run into across these three articles are Rasteryze (talk · contribs), Wttribell (talk · contribs), NatashaBrun (talk · contribs), and Natasorokina (talk · contribs).
IMO, the version of the page as you AFD'd it was a travesty. I've merged the better version back in (keeping the AFD, of course), so that uninvolved editors can see that the article has had some references. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the version that had the refs, but because with all the SPAs running around, I didn't know what is good and bad to do a restore with. However, I think you made the right call. User:Danish pasty is a SPA, but as you said, didn't add fluff. I totally think you are a SPA... Special Person Always. Bgwhite (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person (Kosoy) has made significant contributions to the video game industry for decades and is well known by many of the bigget executives in that industry. according to wikipedia, "As of April 3, 2010, a proposed deletion process for unsourced biographies was established, requiring all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject." There is at least one reliable source. There is no funnny business going on here - that person is exactly who it says him to be. I may not have done a great job writing the article, no doubt there - it can be cleaned up with some assistance. But the subject of the article is without question LEGIT! Rasteryze (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* The news tab above this discussion shows an article in Bloomberg Business week confirms that Kosoy was indeed an officer at Sega. That wasn’t cited in Kosoy’s article but should be if the following doesnt apply.

* In the reference that BGWHITE said was an interview, the journalist clearly introduces Kosoy (before the interview) as having worked for GT interactive, MGM and Sega as was correctly cited in the original article and was obviously familiar with Kosoy’s reputation as the introduction indicates with more about Battlefield and Digital Illusions, etc. The citation in the Wikipedia article was not referring to the interview, but to the reported introduction. This article was written by a well known senior editor of one of the industry’s biggest news sources.

* Other references showing Kosoy and ISM were hosting a charity poker tournament raising money for childrens charity was completely deleted. Dorismith unilaterally determined that as “not important”, deleted it and in a later edit (06:32, 30 May 2012‎ ) indicated that another users version “sucked”. By the rules of Wikipedia, this article should not be deleted because one or two editors simply does not feel that it is not worthy or because they think the work “sucked”. There are verifiable documented sources on the subject of this article, even the deleted charity mention, and could be many others me and other people have yet to find like many wikipedia articles. I personally dont think Mary Kay Ash is noteworthy, but probalby thousands of ladies do. I still wouldnt delete her article.

* The article that was edited by Danish pasty at 12:37, 29 May 2012 is certainly cleaner than my original version, except for the removal of the charity, which in my opinion is a noteworthy mention of the subject. It would be good starting place for the article to grow.Rasteryze (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Rasteryze (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify some of User:Rasteryze's statements above:
- I have no problem with User:Danish pasty's version, as his edits to my previous version were fairly minor. It was User:Derek3422 (a friend of Kosoy's) who made a mess of things, as I said on his talk page.
- Yes, I believe that these edits resulted in a version that sucked. Note that almost all the references were removed—for instance, [4] does not actually create a ref out of thin air. The only two remaining refs don't display, because the {{reflist}} tag was removed and then improperly re-added. Wikilinks were screwed up, including changing Quake to link to Quake instead of Quake (video game), "DICE" to link to Dice instead of EA Digital Illusions CE, and Toxic Crusader to link to Toxic Crusaders instead of Toxic Crusaders (video game). Game titles, which had been italicized per WP:MOSTITLE, were reverted.
- My issue with the charitable work is that the source provided doesn't support the claim that's made. For instance, the claim was made that "Kosoy organized a charity event hosted by his agency together with Starlight Children's Foundation…" The source, though, just says that ISM organized the event and that Kosoy made a statement on behalf of ISM—that is, while Kosoy worked for ISM, it's never stated that Kosoy himself worked on the tournament. Additionally, Starlight isn't listed as hosting or organizing the event; they're just the recipients of the money raised. Consequently, I had no problems cutting that paragraph, as there wasn't much left once everything unsourced was cut.
- You state above that I wrote that something was "not important", but I cannot find anywhere I used that phrase. Diffs, please?

Let's keep this about the article content versus attacking editors and WP:OSE, shall we? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like a CV. Although I'm sure this guy has had a great career, he seems no more notable than the average game industry executive. Maratrean (talk) 10:39, 9 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, Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale from User:Maratrean. There's no WP:SIGCOV to indicate he has notability among his peers. --Teancum (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE, provided a number of the Selected games have been the subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. -- Trevj (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, based on the RS currently in ther article. He's not the most famous person (never heard of him), but there are enough sources to show notability. See WP:HEY - this has been imporved in the past 2 weeks to get over the hurdle. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as of right now, the article has not been touched in the last 16 days. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - DoriSmith, you seem to be adamant to get rid of this article. And my interest is to clean it up and make it presentable to account for and record a person who has done great things in that industry. His projects are not at all ordinary. They are some of the most notable successes in history setting him apart from many in that business. My wiki abilities might be lacking, but my intention is good. You behave as if you have an extreme prejudice and personal conflict of interest. I woudl like to reach out to you to shift your approach to contriubte positively to makeit a better article.Rasteryze (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is a notable individual. He has be noticed by plenty of external media sources OracleB (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)— OracleB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Holtz Coach for Life Tribute[edit]

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

Clear case of non-notable subject Jweiss11 (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant information to Lou Holtz p b p 13:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge, then~~ Delete. Should be condensed to one to three sentences and merged to main Lou Holtz article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After carefully re-reading the article several times, I am forced to concur with Cbl, Jweiss and GrapedApe: there is no substance worth merging to the main Lou Holtz article. This non-recurring event was, in effect, a one-time celebrity roast, with no meaningful on-going philanthropic purpose. Delete per WP:EVENT. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of coverage in independent verifiable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a few lines to the Holtz biography. Basis of this argument is that Wikipedia is not a news summary and there is no lasting significance to this one night gala event. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and probably not even enough salvageable to merge to Lou Holtz--GrapedApe (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Cbl62 and GrapedApe, I don't think there's anything worth merging into Lou Holtz here. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of this evening that took place as a suggestion from a Bo Schembechler fan, is part of and significant to the American College Football history. We all have opinions about this and that is fine. But the evening stands as an historical event. Thank you for the feedback. Along the way, this Wiki page has and will continue to receive a lot of responses. There are several and many pages that readers can argue for or against inclusion in this service. Again, thank you for reading and for the suggestions. Please appreciate and respect our decision for the article to remain as part of this great vehicle, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhettt (talk • contribs)

The evening does not stand as an historical enough event per Wikipedia guidelines at WP:EVENT. Bringing up the fact that there are pages out there that don't deserve articles yet still have them is absolutely true but completely irrelevant. Also, what do you mean by "our decision for the article to remain" (emphasis added by me)? It very much sounds like you're working for a group of people or an organization and have a conflict of interest due to the promotional nature of the event on Wikipedia. I can't help but !vote delete on this. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer1 and especially Jrcla2. There's nothing meaningful to merge to the Lou Holtz article. cmadler (talk) 14:01, 14 June 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlawn Manufacturing[edit]

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

Declined Prod. Redid references, but found only a few significant mentions, so sent to AFD for review. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are the sort of routine, trivial coverage given to a run of the mill manufacturer of munitions parts. Google Books has a number of mentions of a late 19th and early 20th century cotton processor of the same name. I conclude that the current firm is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam article about a non-notable business, written by an account used only to promote various businesses and organisations. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be reminded that Arguments to the person are to be avoided in deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 13:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Perhaps it would have expressed my meaning more unambiguously if I had said Spam article about a non-notable business. (Although it is not in itself an additional reason for deletion, it may be worth noting that confirmation of the impression that it seems to be written as promotion can be seen in the author's editing history. That editing history consists entirely of promotion of various businesses and organisations.) I assumed it was clear that what I wrote was an abbreviation for something like that, but evidently I was mistaken. Certainly if I had simply written "Delete Written by an account used only to promote various businesses and organisations", then my comment would have no validity at all. However, something which on its own would not be a reason for deletion can sometimes be legitimately cited in support of something else which is a reason for deletion. Indeed, if you read the whole of the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, rather than just reading the section you linked to out of context, you will see that the essay explicitly acknowledges that something which "which arguably could be classified as an argument to avoid" can have valid use in the context of further comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with your reasoning here. The only non-Ad hominem part of your !vote was "article about a non-notable business". Please concentrate on the articles, not the editors. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 14:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough significant mentions found in reliable sources to reach notability. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 14:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same reasons as above. Kumioko (talk) 15:52, 13 June 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 Uncontroversial merge with no argument for outright deletion. No argument has been advanced for deletion, if anyone cares to dispute the merge portion of this discussion it can be re-opened on an apporiate article talk page. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 16:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ma'aridh Avenue gas cylinder explosion[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, not every minor event deserves its own article, even if it's about a notable topic as long as it isn't notable in it self. The text should be moved to Timeline of the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising (from January 2012), April 12 section. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable?

Did you read this section?

==Significance== Although no one was injured in the attack, it is one of the few to occur in Manama. After the 2011 PSF intervention in Bahrain and the protesters were evacuated from the Pearl Roundabout, opposition actions in the capital were considered to be rare and highly regarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikecod (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

First of all, that section is not sourced. Second, I don't see how a gas cylinder explosion which only caused slight damage to three cars can be notable. Are there any reactions to it? Did something developed after this happened? There were many protests which occurred in Manama after PSF intervention, some receiving much more media attention such as those organised by Nabeel Rajab, does this mean everyone of them deserves a lone standing article? If the incident is notable, I'd expect to see it covered in more than just one reliable source (i.e. not forums or dead Facebook pages).

In summary, if it is notable as you say, provide reliable sources supporting your claim and prove its significance. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article creator (Ilikecod) has merged it into the timeline article and said so on my talk page [3]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an adequate solution. Any objections to a non-admin closure here? --BDD (talk) 23:47, 9 June 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jais Chauhan[edit]

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

Claims made in article are not in any way verified by references. Does not appear to be 'blatant hoax, and references preclude WP:BLPPROD Shirt58 (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of any notability. I saw this as a new article and didn't tag for deletion hoping for improvement, but none has come. No evidence that he has actually done anything except failed an exam. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should have been speedy deleted, there is no evidence of notability. --Muhandes (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax or genuine, fails WP:NACTOR any way--DBig Xray 10:58, 16 June 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 deletion as a re-creation of an article previously deleted by AfD. (Yes, the content was substantially the same.) Hoary (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Lupis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has had a {{db-g4}} tag for two days but no-one seems willing to delete it. Has he become notable in the three years since the last AfD discussion? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 9 June 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. Thanks MichaelQSchmidt for taking care of the article. (Non-admin closure)Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomie: Re-birth[edit]

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

have Google searched and this cannot be established as notable, apart from a review by DVD Talk (which reviews thousands of unknown horror films) which I doubt makes it notable LF (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tomie (film series). I found only two reviews for this film, although there might be more in the Japanese language, if anyone fluent can do a check for me. While the film series is notable, this individual entry just doesn't seem to have that individual notability needed for an article all to itself. I do think that there'd be enough searches to warrant this being a redirect to the article about the film series, though. I'll see what I can manage with Google translate, but offhand I think this would be best off as a redirect and any sources used to flesh out various sections of the film series article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue improvements... per meeting WP:NF per WP:NRVE. Many genre sources available,[4][5] [6] among which are such as Film Threat and DVD Talk which, contrary to the nom's opinion, are emminently suitable for sourcing horror genre films. While yes, the stub as first nominated, did not offer much, that was then... and the former stub has proven to be improvable through use of English-language sources (nice for a Japanese film). We generally do not delete or redirect stubs on notable topics if it is shown the stub can be expanded and improved over time and through regular editing. And, as User:Tokyogirl79 has indicated, Japanese sources are likely available (and would be quite suitable) for additional improvemants. Minimal notability in English, and perhaps more notable to Japan, is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep per sources found by Schmidt. I didn't see those when I was searching, but that's what I get for trying to search and do homework at the same time. Great job!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:18, 11 June 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) 08:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sou Yaty[edit]

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

Article recreated after being deleted by PROD. Concern was "Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG" and it's still valid. The player has not appeared in a fully professional league, nor has he played in senior international level. Also there is no significant media coverage from independent reliable sources (only match reports, for example this one). – Kosm1 fent 06:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 06:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete does not satisfy notability criteria as no international caps, only named in squad and doesn't play in a notable league.Seasider91 (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By 'notable league' do you mean 'fully professional league'? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played internationally or in a fully pro league, nor has he received significant coverage. This article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:07, 15 June 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) 08:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael De La Maza[edit]

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

Seems to lack notability and secondary sources. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject has written one book which is fairly obscure. The peak rating of 2100 is well below the level typical of a notable player, people of IM strength usually have ratings in the 2400+ range. A rise in rating as fast as in this case is somewhat unusual, but it is not particularly notable either. A player who starts out with a low rating but who sets his mind to improving, plays many tournaments, and stops making elementary tactical blunders, can often experience a rapid rating increase, especially when the k-factor is large, as it is in the US rating system. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the deletion and Sjakkale's assessment. The book had a small cult following for short period, but I don't think it meets a notability threshold. Barneygumble (talk) 02:53, 8 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} 05:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. SyG (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable....William 15:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with the others. These type of sensationalist chess teachers are a dime a dozen, especially in the US. Nothing noteworthy in the slightest. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 13:38, 15 June 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} 01:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex De Pase[edit]

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

General lack of reliable sources to confirm subject's notability. His name pops up on his own website and social media. However, the only thing I think gives him a bit of notability is his link to the "World Wide Tattoo Conference" (which, according to his article, he organized and/or invented), so even the notability of this Conference somewhat questionable. In any case, the article also seems to be written in a very, very promotional tone. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 11:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is written without promotional tones now, after some changes.

This version is complete and different from the first one. Of course Alex de Pase is a very popoular tattoo artists and the conference is of course a big event in the tattoo world. Most of the tattoo artist on wikipedia are listed because of the Tv Shows like miami ink or la ink but an artist can be listed even if he doesn't apperar on that kind of media. De Pase is listed in almost all tattoo website, not only fb, social, or auto-promotion. He won a lot of prizes, he has a lot of reviews and he is listed in the 25 best artist of the world. His art is really unique and not questionable. In my opinion this article can't be deleted! Wait for other opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.16.208 (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC) — 151.49.16.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Alex De Pase is undoubtedly one of the tattoo masters well-known around the world in the community-I don't agree with the promotional article 'cause other tattoo artist's articles are very similar-It's important hear some tattoo enthusiast's opinion Expertattoos (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)— Expertattoos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:53, 26 May 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, Sandstein 13:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references look like bombardment - on inspection, I don't see how they amount to significant coverage in reliable independent sources, so WP's notability standards have not been met. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:36, 2 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} 05:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and culled a lot of unusable links from the article. For the newbies coming on, reliable sources cannot be anything released by De Pase himself, so links to his website is out. Also, links that merely point to notification of events (such as schedules) and basic webpages of schools or events are unusable, as are links to product pages. I'll say this up front: merely having your artwork published in book format does not automatically give you notability. If you can prove that the book or magazine focuses heavily on De Pase (as opposed to merely showing an image of his work), then that can help show some notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing a lot of mentions of him, but nothing that is actually in-depth coverage of his work. I know that while tattoo art has become more mainstream lately, it still doesn't get a lot of attention news-wise unless you happen to be one of the bigger faces on one of the TV shows (Kat Von D) or put out a line that goes mainstream (Ed Hardy). However, this does not exempt the artist from having to pass WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST, or any of the basics of WP:BIO. Just because someone is well known within a niche does not mean that this translates into Wikipedia notability. Unfortunately there's not a lot of tattoo magazines and the like that are considered to be notable per Wikipedia's guidelines and most often than not, when someone does get into a magazine, it's usually that their artwork is shown on a page without there being any actual article about the artist. The artwork is featured, but is not the focal point of the magazine, which I'm 99.9% certain is the case here. Now the thing about WP:ARTIST is that artwork can get an artist recognized, but there has to be evidence to show that the artwork has "won significant critical attention" (usually translates into big fancy pants awards), which I'm not really seeing here. I see a lot of name dropping, but not anything to show that he's created any technique that has become a big significant thing, that his artwork is widely recognized, or that he's really all that widely cited. Most of his coverage is rather limited and while again, I know that the tattoo world is still a niche, that doesn't mean that there aren't avenues for in-depth coverage. That coverage just doesn't exist and De Pase just doesn't fit within the very strict notability guidelines that is required for a person to have an article devoted to them here on Wikipedia. Managing festivals is great, but that doesn't give notability. I looked into the awards and recognition that he's supposed to have won, but I don't see where they're considered to be major awards or recognitions that Wikipedia considers to be major enough to warrant an article. When it comes to this sort of thing, 99.9% of any awards or recognition will not be big or notable enough to give notability in and of itself. I know that not everyone can win an Oscar or a Nobel prize, but winning recognition from Rebel Ink isn't something that would give absolute and total notability to where it'd keep the article by itself. It would be usable as a source to show notability, but unfortunately the link given was for a facebook link. We can't use facebook as a RS. If someone can post another source and show that this coverage is actually in-depth and not just a list of people with featured artwork, then it'd show notability. As far as The Chaudesaigues Award goes, that in itself does not appear to be a notable award, so being on the panel judging does not show notability. Even if it was an award that is considered notable per Wikipedia, being a judge does not give someone notability. (Being a judge for the Oscars does not give notability either.)

TL;DNRIn the end even with the potential of the Rebel Ink source, there's not enough reliable sources to show notability. None of the links on the article show notability and linking to various award or convention pages does not show notability in the slightest. To be honest, the entire article is so promotional in tone that it could probably be speedied under one thing or another.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:00, 9 June 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} 06:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oldland Abbotonians F.C.[edit]

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

Though this football (soccer) club has around for a long time, it plays in one of the lowest leagues and the article has had no independent, reliable sources cited since the outset. Needs to cite some non-routine in-depth coverage to pass the notability requirements, but I can't see any online. Sionk (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for info, the Western League isn't anywhere near being "one of the lowest leagues"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, it is in a league (10 levels below the Premiership) which doesn't normally participate in the FA Cup, so doesn't even meet the generous notability criteria of WikiProject Football. Sionk (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are waaaaaaaaay lower levels than that ;-) See for example Bristol and Avon League...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western League clubs do play in the FA Cup (see 2011–12 FA Cup qualifying rounds and you'll see Div 1 teams such as Welton and Wellington) - in fact, Andover F.C. qualified for the first round proper while playing the Western League. However, I can't find any evidence that Oldland Abbotonians have played in the FA Cup... at least, not their men's team. ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 06:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - couple of sources added, more could be found -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in the national cup competition, and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With reference to the FA Competitions List 2012-13 Oldland Abbotonians are entering the 2012/13 FA Vase. In this light it would be abortive to delete this article at this moment in time. League Octopus (League Octopus 07:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Comment - is FA Vase enough to be notable, I thought the club had to play in the FA cup? Mentoz86 (talk) 21:06, 1 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GiantSnowman. Playing in the FA Vase (re. League Octopus) is just not enough. It isn't even the higher of the two competition for non-league clubs. One can create and enter a club at level 11 of the English football league system and be immediately eligible for the FA Vase. The national club competition per WP:FOOTYN is the FA Cup, which the subject isn't even automatically eligible for the qualifying rounds for this upcoming season having finished below 4th place in a ~~Level~~ Step 6 league. There's no indication that the subject have played in the FA Cup proper in its history. -- KTC (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clubs that have played in the FA Vase in the past have been accepted as a cut-off point for notability for English non-League clubs:
Crane Sports
Bovey Tracey
Brache Sparta Community
Ibstock United
Andover New Street

Clubs that have played at Level 10 (Step 6) have been accepted as notable despite not playing in any national cup competition:

Before another "ad hoc" decision is made surely it is better to sort out a consistent policy in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. League Octopus (League Octopus 17:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

It's unlikely anyone is going to rewrite the notability guidelines in the next few days, so we'll have to base this decision on the existing ones, presumably WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The question about whether Wikipedia should become a directory for every minor sports team is another matter which won't be solved here. Sionk (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. – Kosm1 fent 18:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - playing at Step 6 has been used as a criterion for notability in the past, as has been demonstrated. Oldland would have been promoted to Step 5 in 2010-11 anyway if their ground had been up to scratch. The article could do with further references though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more references added. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Club plays at step 6, on which there has been consensus previously. Number 5 7 19:14, 2 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} 05:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So far, there are only 2 articles substantially about the club ([7], [8]), and I would like to see more before saying unequivocally that it meets WP:GNG. On that basis it would be a weak keep, but since they play at level 10, I'm happy to go with previous consensus that clubs at this level should be kept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 11 June 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 as G4. Deleted by Lankiveil. (Non-admin technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Richero (deejay)[edit]

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

Not notable, no reliable sources, fails music bio. GregJackP Boomer! 04:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Marian richero. I've also asked for a speedy delete. Bgwhite (talk) 06:17, 9 June 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 Snowball keep because magic makes it all complete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom[edit]

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

Lack of notability. The MLP: FiM fandom has not done anything worthy of having a Wiki page. MontyPla (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The 96 sources and references on the page, including links to Wired, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Time, and Entertainment Weekly, says otherwise. In fact, much of this content helped the original MLP:FIM article reach good article status before being migrated here. This AfD reeks of unnecessary bias against the subject matter on the part of the editor, and should be thrown out immediately. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyberlink. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Not only is this well-sourced and clearly notable, it's no different than say, Trekkies, Batmania, or otakus. Just because the specific fandom for FIM hasn't been around as long doesn't mean that it isn't notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Nominator misunderstands notability policy, clearly. Whether something is "important" is irrelevant, so long as it is the object of multiple instances of published coverage in so-called "reliable sources." This clears the bar handily, per the vast footnotes. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of whether this is important, it's clearly notable. This My Little Pony fandom creeps up pretty much everywhere on the Internet. 96 references, most of which are from reliable sources, shows clear notability. JIP | Talk 07:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep if this isn't notable, 99% of WP is in trouble of failing notability as well. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all. Why did this even get nominated?DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep – The topic clearly passes WP:GNG. For starters, see some of the sources in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:10, 9 June 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian C. Hales[edit]

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

No indication given of this author's notability. He exists, but is not by the info given notable, inside the insular world of Mormon publishing. (Greg Kofford Books is connected to Seagull Book, a mormon concern.) refs show only that he exists, when they are valid at all. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kofford Books is an indepepndent book store, the claim that it is connected with Seagull Books is not based on fact. Beyond that, even if it was the argument would bwe built on a projection model that ignores the function of independence that characteriszed Seagull Book for most of its history. he books that Hales writes are the seminal works in the field. These are important books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 2 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* 03:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything and if he were notable, I would. This is a pretty crowded field, although people outside LDS culture don't see much of it. He's written a lot of stuff and done a lot of work, but... I don't see his influence getting very far. - Richfife (talk) 05:07, 9 June 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. Delete as non-notable friendly tournament - 2011 version will be as well. Nothing worth merging as there are no claims for independent notability (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Caspian Cup[edit]

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

Unremarkable football tournament with no third party reliable sources covering it. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sources:
II Caspian Cup turniri keçiriləcək. affa.az
Japan U-16 Caspian Cup squad announced. jfa.or.jp etc.
--►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 03:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:25, 2 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* 03:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
1. Sources have been provided, and while I can't find any guidelines as to notability for a competition, precedent suggests the bar is rather low.
2. If all of the countries involved have articles for their youth teams (except one), you would think a competition among them would have the same level of notability.
3. If we were to delete this, 2011 Caspian Cup would have to go too.
--BDD (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails GNG, and yes the other article should go as well - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 18:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unremarkable, friendly tournament for youth teams. Coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to me to just barely clear the bar on referencing and notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm 50-50 on this one. While I agree with Bushranger, I don't think we have articles for other U17 friendly tournaments, do we? Maybe we would merge this with 2011 Caspian Cup into Caspian Cup? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Merge into Caspian Cup - Caspian Cup appears to meet WP:GNG (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). 2011 Caspian Cup should be merged into Caspian Cup as well (and the lead tweaked). Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way that lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. If the Caspian Cup article grows per Wikipedia:Summary style, then the subtopics can have their own article. The parent article for Caspian Cup would be Football in Azerbaijan, which should be edited to say something about the Caspian Cup. Of course, then there's 2012 Gabala Cup from Category:Football in Azerbaijan. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, along with 2011 Caspian Cup into Caspian Cup. I think what Uzma Gamal proposed is a suitable option. —Hahc 21 15:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Merge into Caspian Cup along with 2011 Caspian Cup as per Mentoz86's suggestion & Uzma Gamal's rationale. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but merge. Per WP:SPORTSEVENT at Wikipedia:Notability (sports): "The final series ["or single game"] determining the champion of a top league ["are inherently notable"]."(bold added by me) IMHO, it seems nearly self-evident that the under-17 "top league" is 'FIFA U-17 World Cup' rather than a lower "feeder league" of teams scattered about the Caspian Sea. It would seem to follow that deletion is indicated for both 2011 Caspian Cup and 2012 Caspian Cup. Support creation of new article 'Caspian Cup' and merge related events there. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Isn't that a little out of context - WP:SPORTSEVENT is about single games, not tournaments? But yes, the text you copied clearly indicates that 2012 Caspian Cup Final is not notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, 'WP:SPORTSEVENT' explicitly includes championship "series" as well as single championship games. The article on Playoff format states: "Some of the most common are the single elimination, the best-of- series, the total points series, and the round-robin tournament." The linchpin of WP:SPORTSEVENT is not between "series"&"tournament", but between "top league"&"feeder leagues"; the 'WP:SPORTSEVENT' guideline tells us that a particular year's series/tournament is only inherently notable if it is for the "top league". So '2011 Caspian Cup' is not inherently notable (or notable at all IMHO), but '2011 FIFA U-17 World Cup' is inherently notable. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into new article Caspian Cup. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:38, 19 June 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 Connor Fogel. A third relist is unnecessary A redirect to the founder seems eminently reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redfields Community Choir[edit]

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

Community choir based in Ystrad, Wales. It has a notability tag since 15 days and is still valid. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 06:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found two reliable sources mentioning the choir: [9] (Wales Online, currently present in the article) and [10] (a paragraph in an article published by The Independent). I don't think it is enough for a stand alone article, but I think redirect to Connor Fogel, the founder of the choir, could be a sensible solution. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Connor Fogel. Just what I was going to suggest. The choir does not appear to be notable but its founder does appear to be. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 2 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* 03:49, 9 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* 06:54, 16 June 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 Ron_Kenoly#Discography. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG presented. Verifiable, however, so a redirect is fine. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Ought to Listen to This[edit]

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

Non notable "custom album", ona search on Google, an album is found but by other singer. Also, it doesn't meet music notability and is comp. unsourced. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 06:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, no sources. DietFoodstamp (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Contemporary Black biography: Vol. 45, p. 121, Gale Research Inc, ISBN 9780787667337: "Kenoly began trying to break into the gospel music scene in the late 1970s but had very little success until he produced his own album You Ought to Listen to This in 1983." If we can't find out more then redirect to Ron_Kenoly#Discography. The existence of the album is verifiable and redirect is in my opinion better than deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:57, 2 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* 03:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per the above; it's the title of an album, and should redirect to the artist in the absence of a better target. The notability just isn't there so far as I can tell. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seraph (band)[edit]

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

Band does not meed WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak delete - One of the members went on to Skillet. John Cooper (musician). The band itself isn't notable, but perhaps the information can be merged or salvaged in someway, but I doubt there is anything worth saving, it doesn't even have sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:47, 3 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* 03:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a few sentences on the band in the John Cooper article, which should suffice for this group which does not appear to meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 10:06, 9 June 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) 08:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis E. Curran[edit]

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

AP Journalist and press secretary for a state governor; not seeing any valid WP:BIO criteria being met here. Looks as if someone saw his obit in a local paper and decided to make an article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides the obituary, I could not find any independent sources, so Dennis E. Curran does not meet WP:BIO. NJ Wine (talk) 03:26, 1 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR; writing for a living does not make one notable, and neither does being a state governor's press secretary. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 16 June 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. CSD:G12 Nice find Clarityfiend. I actually did a google search using a phrase from the article because I suspected that it was a copyvio myself but he reworded it, However, a close paraphrase is still a copyvio. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amb Sahib[edit]

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

Article related t a place. The entire article reads like a chapter of a religious article instead of an encyclopedic article about a place. Also it's unsourced. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 05:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A1/G1. This is not an article. The prose is obviously broken English, but verging on nonsense. Matt Deres (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'. There's a decent article on the subject here but I can't find much information on which license that wiki uses or I'd copy the text here. This suggests that it may be the GFDL. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 9 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Start over. This appears to be a WP:COPYVIO of this page. The site's terms state that copies can be made for personal use only. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 9 June 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 New Brunswick School District 18. WP:OUTCOMES The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Street Middle School[edit]

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

school is listed in school district article and nothing here notable. WP:WPSCH/AG#N Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Street Middle School, Central New Brunswick Academy, and Devon Middle School are all middle schools in New Brunswick School District 18 and as such could probably be considered together. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily expanded. Several notable alumni and the building itself is a historical site. Mr Pyles (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Middle school with no inherent notability or any that can be claimed under WP:ORG. Blank and redirect as per standard practice for schools, checking that it is listed either under its school district or locality article pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- To New Brunswick School District 18, and no indication this was attempted before bringing to AfD. Dru of Id (talk) 01:12, 5 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longtime standard practice for unremarkable elementary schools. Maintaining a very high bar for elementary schools and a very low bar for high schools is a compromise between deletionists and inclusionists which helps keep Wikipedia running smoothly, with a predictable and useful universal set of content. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I would concur with this solution. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 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 New Brunswick School District 18. WP:OUTCOMES The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Middle School[edit]

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

school is listed in school district article and nothing here notable. WP:WPSCH/AG#N Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Street Middle School, Central New Brunswick Academy, and Devon Middle School are all middle schools in New Brunswick School District 18 and as such could probably be considered together. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily expanded. Several notable alumni. Mr Pyles (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To New Brunswick School District 18, and no indication this was attempted before bringing to AfD. Dru of Id (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to New Brunswick School District 18 per Dru of Id. Quasi human | Talk 15:17, 6 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for typical elementary schools. Properly-written biographies are apt to include high schools by name, not at all likely to include elementary schools by name. Those links should be blue, not red. There is no such case to be made for elementary schools. Consensus is that rather than fighting to the last ditch over sourcing for hundreds of thousands of such schools, they typically be redirected to school district or city unless of extraordinary historical significance. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I would concur with this solution. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willamette Shakespeare[edit]

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

No notability asserted for this small classical teather company established in 2008. Only a couple of 2nd-party references i could find, but no notability asserted on them. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 06:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - no evidence of notability. --Greenmaven (talk) 08:28, 2 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As cool as the idea of this theater company sounds, there's just nothing out there to show that this troupe is ultimately notable. I would also like to note a COI on behalf of the original editor, as he shares the same name as one of the members of the troupe. [11]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:28, 9 June 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) 08:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banner Jones Middleton Cup[edit]

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

Pre-season friendly between a league club and non-league club that dates back only ten years. Echetus Xe 13:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:39, 3 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of clubs play for pre-season local cups/shields - no evidence that this one is notable. Giant Snowman 18:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A glorified annual pre-season friendly. Nothing to suggest it meets the relevant notability guidelines. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability through WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't appear to be notable. – Kosm1 fent 16:20, 14 June 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Čivićevac[edit]

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

Was prodded with the following rationale: Is not a river, but rather a creek or a canal, depending on the source. Can't find elementary facts about it (e.g. its length). Lacks notability. The prod was declined. Still, the fundamental problem remains, and that is failure to meet WP:GNG, illustrated by the fact that there are no reliable sources from which basic facts (such as e.g. length, source and mouth) could be established. GregorB (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source to the article: the official website of the town. I admit that the creek may not be independently notable, however, it is a verifiable geographical information. It could be redirected and mentioned in the article about the town. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:5 says that Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". This is a stream (not a creek or a canal) that is listed in The Gazetteer of the Republic of Croatia. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a bad argument... The Gazeteer also lists coordinates, thus providing at least one of the "basic facts" I was referring to. Still, it is my understanding that WP:GNG trumps WP:5: Wikipedia indeed "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers", but these would normally still have to pass the general notability threshold. I say "normally" because there are some gray areas: are all settlements, geographic features and minor planets inherently notable? Frankly, I'm not sure either way. GregorB (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm inclined to think that WP:5 trumps GNG, myself. (Hence all the tiny places that have dedicated articles.) These five pillars are the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates . --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sometimes it apparently does (settlements), and sometimes it apparently doesn't (minor planets, see WP:NASTRO). Geographic features could be said to lie somewhere in between. This quote from WP:NASTRO is also interesting:

However, unlike Earth-based geographic features, arbitrary astronomical objects are unlikely to be visited or run across by a general reader of Wikipedia. Therefore, unless an astronomical object has significant coverage in the media or published sources, the likelihood that a general reader would choose to search Wikipedia for an arbitrary astronomical object is quite low. This is not a matter of dubious predictions; it is just common sense. Therefore, unlike Earth-based geographic features, the existence of an astronomical object, or even the fact that it has been named (see below) does not guarantee notability.

This is a good argument in favor of inclusion in this particular case. GregorB (talk) 10:16, 9 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) and per Wikipedia's Five pillars, whereby the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query: should GregorB's "This is a good argument in favor of inclusion in this particular case" be taken as a withdrawal of the nomination? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about withdrawing the nomination, but I'm still not fully convinced and I'd like to hear more opinions. If not, this is going to be closed as "keep" anyway. GregorB (talk) 11:10, 15 June 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 - filelake shoe  09:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spacedaily.com[edit]

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

Although I see this website used as citations in Google Books and as citations in many Wikipedia articles, this is non-notable. This may be a reliable source, but not all reliable sources are notable. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 3 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 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* 06:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WEB and GNG. I can see why a previous speedy nomination could have been declined, but can't see how it's possible to keep in an AFD, based on a reasonable search for sources. A search for information on the founder doesn't seem to help. This page has appeared in mainspace for seven years with zero sources. BusterD (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If its a WP:RS in Google Books, maybe its better to keep it just as a reference for amateurs here, nothing more, even if if its not very notable in the mass media. Its been here since 2005 anyway and scientists use it for their work. --Artene50 (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason to keep, nor is the fact it's been here a WP:LONGTIME. The article is unreferenced, and no references can be found that indicate notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sometimes blind allegiance to the GNG/N are not always in our best interest and instinctively I'm minded that we should keep this but I'm struggling to articulate a policy based reason to do so... Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's always WP:IAR, but even if they're not GNG quality some references are needed per WP:V... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:45, 19 June 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} 02:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation of Sound[edit]

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

Contested PROD. A non-notable band, the topic shows no hits on Google News. Nothing on Allmusic.com. A standard web search only comes up with stuff on MySpace and Facebook, etc. The only cited ref in the article is to a Facebook page. Matt Deres (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 (lack of significance). I could not find any independent sources even trivially discussing Innovation of Sound. This is a garage band. NJ Wine (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found one source from a local paper. Matt's science sounds superb from the Coventry Evening Telegraph. No vote at this time. The Steve 06:00, 5 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator (and member of the band) has provided a number of putative sources to expand the article, including the one listed above. Every one is either from a blog or is just a passing mention - or both. I've explained why they're not suitable to build a good article out of and also appraised him of the issues with COI, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND and WP:GNG. I'm seeing nothing meeting the WP:IRS standard in a reasonable search. If the only applied sources are Facebook refs, it's clearly too soon to consider this subject notable enough for inclusion. Likely promotion. BusterD (talk) 16:53, 16 June 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.