Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 March	16 March >

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global elite[edit]

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

Article paragraphs are copy/paste with very few changes. Sources are unreliable and heavily bias. Article reads more like an attack on companies than anything about them. RichardMills65 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that nominator's objection is to a bunch of copy-pasted soapboxing that was added to the article today. I deleted it all, leaving just the neutral sourced material that was kept at the last AfD discussion. With the deleted section gone, the article remains as a weak keep IMO. I will add it to my watchlist to guard against that kind of nonsense, for which the article is probably a magnet. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe someone should check out Google News and find as much information about the global elite as possible. I don't mean to attack companies, but it gets personal when the "elite 1%" helps to finance these "wars for oil" and refrain from hiring the 99% that need their weekly paychecks to pay for groceries, bills, and transportation-related expenses. GVnayR (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reads more like a political pamphlet, rather than a WP article. But that is not a reason to delete, of course. If anything is worth keeping in this article then merge it into a section in Conspiracy theory and redirect this page to it. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the article? Only one or two sentences even refer to the the possibility of a "conspiracy theory". The article is referenced virtually sentence-by-sentence to Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be revised and perhaps merged with another article on social class or globalization. Meclee (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a commonly-used phrase, almost trite and cliched; however, that makes it notable. The article is, right now, well-sourced per WP:GNG and WP:RS. This has been used as a conspiracy theory, not the Conspiracy theory. Our core readers, students, will look for a separate article, and we should provide it for them. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef, nothing particularly interesting here that's not covered elsewhere. Hairhorn (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Not for a deletion of all of them together, at least. The nominator may want to examine the discussion to determine whether it might make more sense to nominate some of these separately. Sandstein 07:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Nobel Laureates[edit]

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

There are several lists of Nobel laureates that I think are misguided. Nobel prizes are awarded for someone's work in a relevant field such as chemistry or medicine or because they have contributed to world peace but they are not awarded for someone's religion, ethnicity or gender nor even by where they live. The issue of whether a laureate is a Muslim, Jew, black or other can be covered in their article if there is one about them. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

I have not nominated the list of women laureates because the official website has a section on the lack of women laureates. Green Giant (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Shouldn't this list of lists also include List of Japanese Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? --Lambiam 23:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I forgot that one and added it afterwards. Green Giant (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How do we reconcile (for instance) the nomination for deletion of List of Jewish Nobel laureates with (for instance) List of Jews in sports? Wouldn't the same reasons for deletion of (for instance) "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" apply to (for instance) "List of Jews in sports"? Why would a distinction be made between (for instance) those two lists as concerns a nomination for deletion such as the one we are considering here? Bus stop (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These lists are unnecessary. In response to the above concern about the List of Jews in sports, the page states that 'The topic of Jewish participation in sports is discussed extensively in academic and popular literature', and has the sources to prove it. That makes it worthy of inclusion. None of the Nobel laureate lists have comparable coverage except List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which perhaps should be kept. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, No one is claiming that people get Nobel Prize because of their religion,we are just saying that these Nobel Laureates were Muslims in their faith,& diverse groups of people got the Nobel Prize,If Jewish Nobel Laureates are not deleted,then there is no logic why muslim Nobel Laureates should be deleted.--User:Skashifakram(UTC)

I understand that it could be frustrating to see one list be deleted and not the other one but one tries to establish notability. Do you have any notable source talking about muslim nobel laureates? Eleventh1 (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skashifakram, why is it important to identify Nobel laureates by their religion at all? Green Giant (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skashifakram, come on! Your last edit modified this comment to prefix it with your third "Keep" !vote. I understand you are passionate about keeping the list you have been working on, but that's no reason to try to sneak in two extra !votes, it's really poor form. Zad68 (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because,after all people need to know the Truth.Is it an extra-ordinary demand?If you dont like(because what administrators decide goes),you can include these lists into category list.These lists give confidence to marginalised groups & give them confidence that they deserve to prosper....User:Skashifakram(UTC)
Delete but may I suggest that we distinguish in the discussion between the six articles that didn't try (at all) to establish their notability and the List of Jewish Nobel laureates that tried (even if I think that it failed and should be deleted anyway). The obvious problem with these lists is that there is a potentially infinite number of imaginable list of Nobel laureates by nationality (including former nationality), ethnicity (very fuzzy domain), religion (really nothing to do with Nobel prizes) or anything else. Eleventh1 (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok,then make the list in the subsection of List of Muslims & then delete it,this is the least I can hope for.--User:Skashifakram.(UTC)

Keep—the nominator says "...I think [they] are misguided." This is not a good enough reason in my opinion for deletion. "Misguided" for what reason? Another editor's reason given for deletion is that these Lists are "unnecessary." I find that reason tepid at best. We should not be deleting articles based upon someone's assessment that they are "unnecessary". This in my opinion is tantamount to "I don't like it." I am willing to change my mind. But I would only do so if a good enough reason for deletion is given. Bus stop (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Bus stop..User:Skashifakram(UTC)

Comment - If it wasn't clear from the second sentence of my nomination, the reason for deletion is that "prizes are awarded for work in a relevant field such as chemistry or medicine ... but not for someone's religion, ethnicity or gender...". If you can find any evidence that these people were awarded Nobel prizes for being Jewish or Muslim then I will happily withdraw this nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Giant—these are attributes of identity associated with Nobel laureates. To my knowledge no editor has advanced an idea of a connection or relationship between prizes awarded and the attribute of identity associated with each of the above Lists. The Lists are the products of editorial initiative. I think that the onus is on you to show why dismantling the product of the above editorial efforts is warranted—not simply that the connection or relationship has not been established. There is to my knowledge no editor arguing for the identification of any such connection or relationship. Is that your argument—that we must firmly nail down a connection or relationship between the attribute of identity associated with each of the above Lists and the winning of Nobel prizes in order to justify the existence of these Lists? Bus stop (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence that you need is right there in the titles of these lists. "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" implies a link between the Nobel prize and the fact the recipient may be Jewish, otherwise there is no good reason to categorise Nobel prize winners by their faith. Look at the most relevant lists: List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry, List of Nobel laureates in Literature, List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates, List of Nobel laureates in Physics and List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine - each of those titles implies a direct link between the award of the prize and the field they received it for. Green Giant (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am exactly with you [Bus stop],we never claimed that there is a connection of Nobel Prize with jewishness & muslim character.When you say American Nobel laureate,you dont say that someone got Nobel because of being American,but you say that that man happened to be American,that's all.A Nobel Laureate is a pride for all nations,all communities & all of humankind.

User:Green Giant,please dont misunderstand us.Let us become united for freedom of speech & representation of all groups of people regardless of their ethnicity or religion...User:Skashifakram(UTC)

I am sorry you misunderstand me, but this is not the right forum for freedom of speech and representation of all peoples. It is an online encyclopedia, nothing more, nothing less. Green Giant (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you sorry,does not the neutrality policy of wikipedia suggests that wikipedia should be unbiased.You think that this is not a place for representing people.It's ridiculous.Then you should delete all lists related to LGBT community,which we dont want....User:Skashifakram(UTC)

Comment I think it is questionable to create lists based on criteria that belong to the personal sphere (like religion) for something that is in no way connected to religion, like getting a Nobel prize. Not every Nobel prize winner may publicly reveal his religion (if any), and what if a Nobel prize winner secretly converts from one religion to another? They are then in a list where they do not belong. And where will it stop with this kind of lists? One could as well create a List of vegetarian Nobel laureates or List of gay Nobel laureates or List of Nobel laureates with asthma or List of Nobel laureates who meditate, and you may the find sources needed to start filling up such lists. But what is the point of having such lists? MakeSense64 (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Green giant makes a valid point. The award has no relation to someones ethnicity, culture, religion, birthplace, political affiliation etc. Most scientists do not even identify themselves belonging to any particular group. This is like tagging someone as a Nazi who is by birth from a Nazi supporters family line but is a great scientist and does not want to relate himself/herself with any group or ethnic identity. All the lists should be deleted.HasperHunter (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should an article such as Welsh Nobel laureates and nominees be added here? If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I tend to agree with the nominator's sentiments, I think this AfD is badly thought out, misnamed, and unlikely to result in anything but confusion. The lists have different criteria for inclusion (though such criteria are often unclear), and as such each needs to be looked at individually. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that a list by nationality is valid - it can be based entirely on objective data - while arguing that one based on ethnicity or faith is going to be inherently arbitrary and subjective. Lumping a disparate collection of lists together and expecting a conclusive result is unlikely to get us anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... if it seems badly thought out then you can blame it on the instructions at WP:AfD which I tried to follow as closely as possible. True it seems like a loosely connected set of lists but I included all of these lists because I found them lumped together in a subsection of the {{Nobel Prizes}} template. Personally I think it is better to have the discussion in one go rather than tackling this matter piecemeal. Green Giant (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BUNDLE. A 'loosely connected set of lists' shouldn't be nominated together. It is highly unlikely to resolve anything. As it stands, this AfD, includes the controversial List of Jewish Nobel laureates, but there is no notification of the AfD on the article. I understand that this is a consequence of the article being fully protected, but this effectively renders the whole AfD improper. I ask that the nominator withdraws the nomination, and instead starts a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right... so you throw the same guidelines back at me, but with a different title? Did you note that "WP:Bundle" is identical to the instructions for multiple nominations at AfD? Also this is the most appropriate place for this discussion and not the pump. Green Giant (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Green Giant, you have to nominate each article for deletion individually on the relevant pages, rather cleverly trying to do them all on the page with the least discussion. I'm not in favour of deleting them. Although I think that some of them need to be re-written, and (in my opinion) re-titled, so that it is clearer who we are actually listing.Avaya1 (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ermm... no I do not have to nominate them separately, read the relevant guideline at AfD and you will not it says to nominate one article and then add a template to the top of each of the other articles... and no there is nothing "clever" about trying to follow the guidelines. Green Giant (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid AfD -- relist for each article This AfD proposal is a clear violation of WP:BUNDLE. From WP:BUNDLE:

Examples of articles which may be bundled into a single nomination:

A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles.
A group of hoax articles by the same editor.
A group of spam articles by the same editor.
A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products.

An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled— nominate it separately. If you're unsure, don't bundle it.

Each of the articles in this AfD bundle has its own, individual list of secondary source cites that could support it. The list of reliable sources that you would use for List of Jewish Nobel laureates is not the same list of sources that you would use for List of black Nobel Laureates, and so there is absolutely no policy-based reason to allow them to be bundled together in an AfD.

The several responses Delete !voters have cited are not backed by available sources and/or Wikipedia policy:

Prizes are "not awarded for someone's religion" -- This is backward observation; in fact it is because prizes are not awarded by religion that makes the exceptional intersections between being a laureate and being a member of a religion (ethnicity, etc.) notable and covered by reliable sources, and therefore meeting the Wikipedia criteria for notability for an article.
"These lists are unnecessary" Untrue, with these lists deleted it would be MUCH harder to piece together the information each list contains
Eleventh1 and HasperHunter say Delete but provide no novel reason

I didn't give any new reason because : 1/ notability is a basic requirement for any article as you certainly know (if not, see WP:GNG) and we don't need any other justification that a lack of source establishing this notability to delete an article, 2/ I already express myself on the talkpage of the article (the one about muslims) 3/ we should avoid anything that could lead us to a form of wikilawyering about the validity of the Afd and focus on the existence and validity of sources that could justify the existence of these lists. Eleventh1 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the particular list List of Jewish Nobel laureates, I use DoctorKubla's own argument regarding List of Jews in sports, where he says "'The topic of Jewish participation in sports is discussed extensively in academic and popular literature', and has the sources to prove it. That makes it worthy of inclusion." as an argument to keep the list. The stark disparity between the percentage of Jews in world population vs. the percentage of Jews in the Nobel Prize laureate list is indeed notable enough that sources cover it as well.
Regarding the lists I haven't mentioned (List of Muslim Nobel Laureates, List of black Nobel Laureates etc.), if the intersection between being a Nobel laureate and a member of the named group is notable enough, on a group-by-group basis, to receive reliable secondary source coverage, and the sources are brought, the list should be kept. If not, it should be deleted. The discussion must be on a group-by-group basis. Zad68 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with most of the above comment. I think the only issue it misses is that these three specific lists - List of black Nobel Laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, List of Muslim Nobel laureates - have serious problems of clarity, and they need to explain clearly the inclusion criteria that they are using. This is probably most strong in the 'black' list. It should really be re-titled 'list of Nobel laureates who have African ancestry'. Avaya1 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:BUNDLE is identical to the instructions located in the multiple nominations subsection of WP:AfD, so please stop quoting it as some sort of separate policy. I know from experience that if I nominated these articles separately I would still have editors on my back calling for them to be nominated together. Zad68, what you quoted there about "examples of articles" is precisely that - examples, not an all-encompassing list of what can be nominated. All of these articles are related by virtue of the words "Nobel laureates" in each of their titles. What exactly is "backward observation"?

I think some editors think I am some sort of ogre but let me assure you it isn't true. The single defining criteria for all of these people is that they are awarded Nobel prizes for work they have done. It is absolutely essential that we should list them separately in terms of the fields of their work e.g. chemistry or physics but whether they are black or white, Jewish or Muslim is not really relevant to the Nobel prize. EQUALLY' I have nothing against each of the actual laureates being categorised as Muslim or Jewish in the appropriate categories - its just I don't its relevant to link winning the prize with their religion or ethnicity. Green Giant (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Giant, you are right, WP:BUNDLE is not policy, but it does give guidelines what makes sense to bundle and what it does not. It was misleading of me to use the words "clear violation of WP:BUNDLE" and suggest it is. Nothing prevents you from making an AfD and bundling List of Presidents of the United States with Otalgia. However, the argument still stands that the bundle of articles in this AfD goes beyond what WP:BUNDLE suggests, and in fact runs against: "An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled." I think I've made a pretty convincing argument (see my comments above) that the individual articles in the bundle here do not at all stand together and have a shared basis of merit in reliable sources. You have not addressed this at all, and I think you would really need to to convince the Admin closing this AfD that the case for Delete has been made. So far, your argument seems to be simply "I don't like it." Zad68 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Green Giant, by "backwards observation" I mean: You think the list is irrelevant because religion (or ethinicity, etc.) is not considered in awarding the Nobel prize. This is backwards. Reliable secondary sources comment on the intersection (for certain groups) of ethnicity and being awarded a Nobel prize because ethnicity and religion are not considered in the awarding of the prize. It is exactly when a statistical anomaly happens in this intersection that makes the list notable. There is no List of canine entrants to the Westminster Dog Show because the relationship is so uninteresting that no reliable secondary sources cover it. Zad68 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poor reason for nomination, reliable sources in the List of Jewish Nobel laureates show validity of the list, counterarguments by Zad68. The Steve 23:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To what sources are you referring to? Many scientists here have publicly refused to identify with any ethnic group, religion culture etc. Those sources are simply basing their identitly by birth. not quite reliable.HasperHunter (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No policy or guideline-based reason for nomination (see WP:DEL-REASON), and there are actually lots of sources that specifically discuss at least some of these topics. Dozens of reliable sources discuss the high percentage Nobel Laureates who are Jews: this book alone, for example, devotes 14 pages to analyzing the phenomenon. In fact, whole books have been literally been written on the subject. Zad68's comments about WP:BUNDLE are also quite accurate and compelling. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~,List of Muslim Nobel Laureates is no longer unsourced & notability is almost established.Thank you...(User:Skashifakram)..(UTC) Multiple !votes removed. Jakew (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Green,Now,you should withdraw your nominations,your point has been written in the introduction of the article.Thank You... Skashifakram (talk • contribs) 10:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - to nominate these for deletion because ethnicity etc. are irrelevant is basically an I-don't-like-it argument. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~strongly keep~~-If we start deleting articles based on our pre-assumptions & biases,we will fail to make wikipedia,a dream come true,a summary of all human knowledge,freely available to every one on earth and which everyone can edit..User:Skashifakram(UTC) Multiple !votes removed. Jakew (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest to make an end to the discussion and withdrawal of all the nominations or have a vote,Thank you..User:Skashifakram(UTC)

Firstly, this is not a vote - and secondly, if it was, you wouldn't get to vote twice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree with you..User:Skashifakram(UTC)

Keep and merge - I do think that secundary characteristics of celebrated people are noteworthy, but perhaps we shouldn't arbitrarily be creating a new article for every feature. I propose that a sortable list/table should be construed which preserves most of the collected data and gives a clear overview of all nobel laureates and the most notible secundary characteristics: gender, etnicity, country of origin, religious belief (if any) and age (at death). --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is exactly what we must not do - see WP:BLPCAT: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation". Nobody should have their religion for example given on a list unless it is directly relevant to their notability. Indeed, a list of the form you propose would quite likely fall foul of privacy legislation in some countries - see the UK Data Protection Act 1998 for example. Though Wikipedia servers are located in the US, anyone based in the UK that was adding such material could quite possibly be breaking the law. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the bundle, maybe renominate individual ones if anyone sees fit. I don't see how [[List of [characteristic] Nobel Laureates]]-style articles fall afoul of our list guidelines (as long as they are sourced, of course). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Comment and Week Delete: The country-wise lists shall be deleted. All [[List of Nobel laureats in [subject] ]] have the column of country. Adding sortability to these tables would be helpful. List of Nobel laureates in Literature also has a country-wise table at the bottom. Having similar on all lists would serve the purpose. Distinction as per religion, ethnicity and religious-beliefs have no relation with being Nobel laureats. Hence Week delete for those. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~,When notability is established,there is no sense to show your administrative powers,you people dont want us to make a list of nobel laureates by faith in category,nor a more authentic and sourced Lists of Nobel Laureates,what do you think,what you say will go,you people always discourage new users,what's the problem with you, all muslim nobel laureates had a component of Islam and Muslim culture in their life,please go through the references.

...Skashifakram(UTC) Multiple !votes removed. Jakew (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Religion a taboo in wikipedia, if yes, why? ..Skashifakram(UTC)
I think this page is ok, please dont delete this.I am a new wikipedian...User:jimindian —Preceding undated comment added 11:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Suggestion I've not looked at any of these so far, but might it be a better idea to re-bundle this AfD into 3 seperate discussions Religion(Muslim,Jewish,Atheist), Nationality (Chinese, Japanese,India), Race. I'm seeing arguments that pick at the various components. With a packaged AfD, it's a good idea to float a test case to provide precedent prior to doing a bulk deletion (See my work on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodger, Bonzo and the Rest (Dramarama Episode) that lead into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter (Dramarama Episode) that was the multi-Article AfD). I know we have WP:NOTBURO, but this gives a good opportunity to debate the article groups on their group info. Hasteur (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Apples and oranges. It's reasonable to expect, and easy to confirm, that a list of individual episodes from an obscure 80's British children's show would all have (or lack) a similar base of reliable sources supporting their notability. As has already been argued here (and nobody has countered), each individual intersection between Nobel laurates and a particular ethic or religious group has its own, individual set of sources to review, of widely varying quantity and quality. Even with the Dramarama example you bring, one episode Dodger, Bonzo and the Rest garnered its own individual popularity that it spun off its own show Dodger, Bonzo and the Rest notable enough for it to have its own article, while the others did not. The list of articles in the bundle need to be evaluated on a case-by-base basis. Zad68 (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest for the trees I didn't comment on any of these articles themselves, I simply suggested that this bundling is preventing the discussion of the 3 subgroups (as I saw them) that may or may not have valid reasons for being kept. Hasteur (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still apples and oranges.... my point is that for the items in the bundle, making "subgroups" for an AfD bundle out of any combination of them is inappropriate, because the items in the bundle are sufficiently dissimilar in their basis of support in reliable sources. We've all burned a lot of words on this AfD, I think it's time to leave it to the closing admin to review. Zad68 (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you want a decision? Keep AND Delete: Keep the Nationality based Laureates as there is a good reason to want to see Nobel Laureates by Country. Delete the Black Nobel Laureates as it doesn't have a solid definition to define membership in the category (IMO). As to the religion aspect, I am having a hard time justifying the Religion Laureates section as almost all are notable for their other field. The only ones I'd consider as being reasonable would be the shared peace prize between the Palestinians and Israelis (and that is a stretch in my mind) Hasteur (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be pointed out that the 'Jewish' list isn't religion-based - if it was, a significant portion of those included wouldn't qualify. Instead, it seems to be based on 'ethnicity as asserted by third parties', though there has been strong resistance to actually telling the readers what the criteria for inclusion are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the average reader (and my mind) there's little difference between Judaism (which is where Jewish redirects to here) and Jews (which appears to represent the ethnicity/culture/heritage). If the list is to be based on ethnicity, it might be better to explicitly define it in the lead what the qualifications to be included are. Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. Sadly, many other contributors don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, why do you want to keep nationality-wise lists? All "Lists of Noble Laureates in (Subject)" have the countries included. All thats needed is to make those tables sortable. Isnt that sufficient? Why duplicate the information? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All (except for Delete on List of atheist Nobel laureates, as per Metropolitan90, below): These are no more invalid than any other list based around nationality, sex, ethnicity or any other of the silly labels over which we obsess, and I agree that the nom has submitted an IDON'TLIKEIT in place of any valid deletion rationale. Do they follow the standards of WP:LIST? Yes. Are they adequately sourced? The lead one up for deletion here, at least, is heavily sourced. Questions about "why is it important" or "OMG people could make MORE lists" are irrelevant. Ravenswing 15:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the authors of these articles violated no policy so far as I understood.We should be careful before bulk deletion...User:jimindian(UTC) — jimindian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). Ravenswing 05:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of atheist Nobel laureates. The article lists about 67 names, yet only two of them have sources. Furthermore, of the two names that are sourced, the article states that one of them, Albert Einstein, rejected the label "atheist". The list purports to include "atheist, agnostic, nonbeliever or secular spiritual" laureates, yet the article title refers only to "atheist" laureates. Someone such as Einstein, who didn't subscribe to a traditional religious belief but also didn't self-identify as an atheist, shouldn't be on a list of atheists. No comment yet on the other nominated lists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was dropped out. List of dropouts in the United States will need a separate nom Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of dropouts[edit]

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

Primarily BLP concerns, but also Verifiability concerns and NPOV concerns as well. List created from deleted Category - however similar categories have been regularly deleted recreated and deleted again. Rarely edited - a handful of times every six months or so so no real improvement of the list or checking of entries or fixing of issues. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing but bad in this article. Zero sources (outside of an outdated 20 year-old reference with questionable veracity), zero reason to exist, and terrible organization. Nate • (chatter) 00:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)![reply]
Delete - You know, normally I might say keep, but, to me, this page has two main issues: it combines high school and college drop outs (which really shouldn't be done, and which also shows a bit of american bias). And second... well, this is like a list of people who quit their jobs. I really hate to use that "notability" word, but... - jc37 03:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - previous CfD which led to the list: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_29#Category:Dropouts. - jc37 03:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And there's also this CfD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_14#Category:People_who_did_not_finish_High_school. - jc37 22:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Would anyone who has already commented object to adding List of dropouts in the United States as a multiple nomination? It's entries are sourced but the sourcing isn't great - and like this one not all the norms of U.S. High School apply to all those listed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish, but that would extend the duration of this discussion. - jc37 00:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hold off just now, my thoughts were that the minimal number of comments here might lead to a re-listing extending the duration anyway. There's no real hurry to delete just the convenience of 1 Afd rather than multiple. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The subject clearly passes our notability guidelines and there is no consensus to merge the content back to the parent article (and the size of the parent article would make such a merger inadvisable). The nominator has failed to show how WP:POVFORK or WP:SPINOFF are relevant in this case. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force[edit]

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

Unneccesary duplication of information on Hawker Hunter, also fails WP:POVFORK and WP:SPINOFF. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a perfectly good topic for an article to me, and the rationale for deleting it seems unclear from the nomination. I think that there's heaps of scope for lots more articles like this one - there's extensive coverage in books, magazine articles, etc, of the service histories of aircraft in individual air forces so notability shouldn't be a problem. Any problems with the text of the article (which aren't specified in the AfD nomination) should be fixable, I'd imagine. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article came about as a result of a content dispute (undue level of detail, editing grammar etc) which now leaves us in a forked situation. If this is a case of expansion of the operational history of the Hunter becoming an overlarge part of the aircraft article it would be better to have a Hawker Hunter operational service article and build up the content for all operating nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs)

Having pondered the matter some more, I don't think this a viable sub-article, a fork which includes a lot of verbatim quoting from a pd site. I think the appropriate action is to merge anything useful that isn't already covered back to the "parent" and Delete this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be an ordinary editing dispute - two cooks in one kitchen. As the Hawker Hunter article is large, then some spinoff seems reasonable. Warden (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a redundant content fork from the main article. While many of the obvious faults are fixable, once all the content that isn't sourced to reliable sources, and all the non-encyclopedic Original Research ("an imaginative red-and-white color scheme" etc) then what youi are left with is effectively what is already in the main article.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it doesnt add anything to the main article, after it was split out by an editor who could not get it included in the main Hawker Hunter article anything of relevance was added to Hawker Hunter by other editors. If we remove everything dupicated in the main article and take into consideraion wp:weight and notability it would not leave much at all in this article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect; although I am a major advocate for article size spinoffs the primary article Hawker Hunter does not appear to yet met guidance set forth in WP:SIZERULE. Presently the parent article is at 55k , if the content from this article is merged with the parent article the total content would be about 70K. While that is between the you really should and it can be suggestions, it is not the 100k+ size prescribed by SIZERULE. Now if the parent article does get to that point I think a better spinout would be like Hawker Hunter operational history similar to F-14 Tomcat operational history, that would encompass service in the multiple nations that had the aircraft.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect; this could be easily covered at the main Hawker Hunter article, there's no need for a spinoff at this point. The length isn't particularly pressing on housing it soley in the main article, especially when the uncited OR additions are snipped off: It'll fit in fine on the main, for now it should just be covered there. Kyteto (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; for the reasons already said by Nick-D. Apart this, i find that this request for deletion had not even valid reasons to be opened at all and is a clear abuse of this instrument. Moreover, i though laugable that this article should be merged after i was -in fact- forbidden to edit in the main Hunter article and later i struggled for days in order to make a decent article spin-off (like zillions in Wikipedia) and enrich the wikipedia database, damaged in fact by the reverts made by the same editor that has opened this request. When someone will show the willing to build an article such F-4 non US operators relative to the Hunter, then it could be evalued the merging, but this is not what we are going to see for the present time and there is no reasons to force things in this way (Swiss Hunters had a long history, this is not what can be said for all the Hunter's costumers). The week is past, the agreement has not reached, this is an overall abuse and therefore i ask to close this request.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick-D - seems a valid topic to me. mgeo talk 21:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of reliable sourcing about this topic, allowing it to pass the notability bar easily. A quick search finds at least two books and a number of private associations dedicated to the topic of the Hunter's service in the Swiss Air Force:

Peter Lewis, Olivier and Peter Gunti: Hunter - ein Jäger für die Schweiz. ISBN 3-85545-840-5
Hans Prisi: Die Geschichte der Schweizer Hunter-Flotte

That makes it a valid subtopic (WP:SS) of Hawker Hunter, where it is (as is appropriate) briefly summarized. A merger is not appropriate because the subtopic is independently notable, and this amount of content (and degree of detail) would not fit well into the main article. That is what subarticles are for. As to POVFORK, I see neither a particular POV nor a forking of content in this article. That aspect of the nomination is disruptive. Sandstein 06:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is coverage, but views differ on whether it is sufficient. I do not think that relisting is likely to change this. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr.[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable per WP:ANYBIO and WP:SOLDIER; fails WP:GNG. Specifically, although the subject has been the recipients of notable awards the awards themselves (although well known) are not significant, this is further expanded upon through the first and second criteria in SOLDIER. The subject civilian career although long is not sufficiently notable in and of itself, even though he received an obituary in the New York Times. Other then the New York Times Obit there are no other significant coverage in other reliable sources for events during the subject's military or civilian careers or significant coverage in books. There is passing mention of the subject's military career of where the subject was stationed in a directory form, but nothing that would meet "Significant Coverage" as set forth in GNG. Now if the subject's Obit is the primary significant coverage it is possible that the death would fall under WP:EVENT, and the death itself does not pass WP:EFFECT. The subject's service is commendable and should be honored, but unfortuntly it is my opinion that the subject's life is not notable. If the primary editor wishes to Userfy the article, I would not object to such action. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep~~Delete~~ per nom. It's aggravating when one has to register a delete !vote for an article where one feels in one's water that it ought to be kept but all guidelines are just against that. If citations appear to assert sufficient notability, the closer of this discussion is welcome to reverse my !vote if I have not returned in time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)The line in the NY Times Obit does it for me apart from the fact of the obit: "he was among the youngest full colonels in the Army", and thus I have changed my mind Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't decided yet. I added a few references to the article. There are actually quite a few Gnews hits about his time in New York government service, but most of them are behind paywalls. Part of the problem is that the article is so unencyclopedic in style, all cluttered up with pretty pictures of medals and such. Overall I doubt if the notability is sufficient, but I may look further. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've found nothing that would suggest being notable per WP:SOLDIER. Being head of the liquor authority probably is the key to notability. But, the only things I've found was Bothwell being briefly mentioned or articles where quotes by him were used related to the liquor authority. So, nothing yet that seems notable. Hopefully MelanieN can dig something up. Bgwhite (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've come around to Delete. I think the references I have added are all I am going to find, and they don't really add up to significant coverage - just announcements of his appointment to the office, or quotes from him in his official capacity. By and large you wouldn't expect the head of a state agency to necessarily be notable, and while he seems to have had a fine military record, we unfortunately have pretty high criteria here for soldiers. (Now if he had been a baseball player.... SNARK). --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This maybe true, but consensus at MILHIST has come up with SOLDIER for notability. However, if it can be found through a reliable source that the subject:

Played an important role in a significant military event; or

Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat

there maybe grounds for me to withdraw my AfD. Being a full bird Colonel may have lead to the subject having commanded a substantial body of troops (for what constitutes substantial see WP:MILUNIT) during combat, but we would need a RS to verify that. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obituary in a major newspaper such as the New York Times is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing about the obit, is that it is amazingly short (some 7 brief sentences). Now whether one believes that constitutes "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG is a matter of opinion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've had time to do a little research. Unfortunately much is behind paywalls but there is sufficient in WP:RS albeit so far all from the New York Times, to suggest to me that the gentleman is notable and that the notability is verifiable. He is not just a soldier. His Civil Defense Authority work (Now cited in the article) is notable, and may well surpass that as head of the Liquor Authority. There is an article behind a paywall that may link his headship of the Liquor Authority to communist witch hunts, too.

The article is poor quality, but we can all tidy a bad article up. I'd rather leave it as it is for a while and have folk attempt citations that throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've added a couple more searches to the head of this AfD which may be useful. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link you added only identifies him as the "assistant deputy director" of the New York Civil Defense Commission. I know from Google News listings that he was later named the head of the commission, but I couldn't find a citable article. Maybe you can. I do think he is on the edge of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paywall is the challenge here. The abstract appears to show things about his role, not just that he had the role. But we have multiple pieces of coverage in a WP:RS qualifying source. That of itself renders him notable, and for more than one event. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, GNG states, "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail". He is mentioned in multiple articles, but not in detail. Only article in detail is the obituary, but that is one source. I want to say keep too, but with no mulptile sources that go into detail, I can't say keep just yet. Bgwhite (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quote "A detailed plan for the protection of industrial plants was offered to business management last week by Col. Frederick C. Bothwell, assistant deputy director of the New York State Civil Defense Commission." seems to me to be detailed. Not quite sufficient, perhaps. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the usual consensus at AfD is that merely being mentioned or quoted, "so-and-so said such-and-such," does NOT constitute significant coverage of so-and-so. The sentence you cite is a perfect example of what WP:Notability (people) calls trivial coverage, namely, "a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail." The "basic criteria" paragraph explains that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." That was my problem with the sources I found too; they basically reported that he had been named to a position, but didn't say anything more about him. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following Keep vote from the author of the article was posted on the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to proposed deletion

I'm totally unfamiliar with the correct method for conducting this discussion, but I wish to object to the proposed deletion of the article about my father, Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr. which I wrote some time ago and have maintained since.

That proposal is evidently based on a perceived failure to meet the standards of suitable prominence for either military or civilian subjects.

I would point out the following points made in the article (and mostly documented in the NYT Obituary)which, to me, seem to meet the requisite criteria:

MILITARY: He was at one time the youngest Colonel in the US Army Air Force and he played a prominent role in at least two significant military events: 1. As the commander of the unit providing Ordnance (weapons and ammunition support) for the AAF base at Grenier Field, NH, which was a point of departure for 5,000 heavy bombers and 50,000 aircrew members en route to the War in Europe. He also was a senior member of the US liasion group assigned to duty in Yugoslavia to coordinate recovery of downed US, French, and British airmen and escaping POWs. His service was recognized by two of the highest allied awards allowed to US personnel: the OBE (Mil) and the Croix de Guerre avec Palme CDG: "The medal is awarded to those who have been "mentioned in despatches", meaning a heroic deed or deeds were performed" OBE (Mil):"From 1940, a person could be appointed a Commander, Officer or Member of the Order of the British Empire for gallantry, for acts of bravery (not in the face of the enemy) which were below the level required for the George Medal",

CIVILIAN: Following the war he was appointed to two of the highest level staff jobs in NY State Governmental: 1. Director of NY State Civil defense - responsible for managing Civil Defense plans to enable NY State (then the most populous state) to survive the nuclear holocaust of an anticipated attack by the Soviet Union during the Cold War 2. Chief Executive of the NY State Liquor Authority - an office responsible for maintaining the highest standards of integrity in the regulation of one of the most challenging areas of State supervision 3. His obituary was published in the NY Times, a sign of some professional prominence among editors and readers of the NY Times.

Please be patient with my lack of knowledge of Wikipedia editorial process, and let me know if this explanation is an adequate justification for retention of the article in question, or how it might be otherwise retained on the site. Frebo3 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EverGirl[edit]

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

Historical line of non-notable products, possibly worth a mention at Nickelodeon (TV channel) if any relevant RS can be found. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"if any relevant RS can be found"? don't you look? I see many RS available.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was unclear. I meant if RS can be found that imply relevance to the Nickelodeon article. While there are certainly mentions on numerous websites, any notability seems to be inherited from Nickelodeon itself. This is the sort of thing I was referring to, discussing the project in a broader sense of Nickelodeon's non-television strategy. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 12 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge.

There is no validity, no sense, and no basis in policy or precedent for the argument that the target article must be cleaned up and updated before a merge can be performed.
There is exceedingly obvious vote stacking going on here, creating a (shabby) illusion of consensus to keep this article.
There are numerous completely unacceptable, unsubstantiated, uncivil personal attacks on users who advocate merging or deletion. That is not how we decide what to do with articles.
So, a lot of what is written here was, as dictated by policy, disregarded as irrelevant and/or bad faith.
Which leaves us with an actual consensus to merge the article back from whence it came. The target article can be updated and improved just as easily whether the merge has been done or not.

Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michelin three starred restaurants[edit]

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

Copy and paste from List of Michelin starred restaurants, without attribution or history. Not a split, just a copy. Duplication Detector Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100% not a copy. Some overlap with List of Michelin starred restaurants, as they are on the same topic but the only "copy" in the article is the "former three starred restaurants" section which should understandably exist on both articles. This article is very thorough with images and details. The List of Michelin starred restaurants article lacks a list of Michelin three starred restaurants entirely- it has NONE!. The idea of deleting the article for having similarities with that article is ridiculous and offensive. As the author of this very thorough and accurate article, I believe it is important for the article to stay up. There are no inaccuracies and there is not a single other list on Wikipedia of Michelin's three starred restaurants. Features unique to the article include:

The only up to date list of the distribution of Michelin three star ratings by both country and city or town with cities and towns that are not even mentioned on List of List of Michelin starred restaurants.
14 images and counting that are not featured in the List of Michelin starred restaurants article. These images each serve to provide interesting and engaging details about different cities and towns on the lists as well as details about the well-known restaurants and chefs.
As I continue to work on the article, It will soon include details about the specific location of each restaurant's location and chef, something also not found on the List of Michelin starred restaurants article. I have already included these details for the three starred restaurants in China, France and Belgium.
The Number of three star restaurants per year (2005-present) is also unique to this article entirely.

I could go on with more and more unique traits to this excellent article. There is no credible reason to take this article down. It would be the equivalent of taking down the article Responsibility for the September 11 attacks because it is featured in the September 11th attacks article. A repetition of information is a crucial part of Wikipedia and building a vast detail of information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammetsfan (talk)

I completely agree with the author of the article that it is both important and unique and the idea of taking it down is "ridiculous and offensive". Amen

I don't know about ridiculous and offensive, but surly stupid. There is no reason to delete this article. Literally no reason whatsoever. It is very, very well written and very informational and I credit the author for his hard work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.207.98 (talk)— 70.114.207.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sammetsfan The above are not four edits, but only two. And I have requested an SPI to check if the two edits are not done by only one person, the author of the nominated article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it was just 1 person claiming to agree with sammetsfan. I will say that I think the article is worthy. I don't know why someone would want to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.207.98 (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a new user, lacysanchez2: Surely unnecessary to delete the article in question. It appears to be informational and of good use. I found it to be interesting, thorough, accurate and original.

The article contains useful information. Sammetsfan makes the far superior case to keep the article up and in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.68.14 (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC) — 174.253.68.14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge to List of Michelin starred restaurants, less the WP:OR "notably absent" countries and cities and captions with trivial stats. No need for two lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete and redirect to List of Michelin starred restaurants. The only reason that the larger list supposedly didn't have this info was because User:Sammetsfan forked it off (diff: [1]). The other differences are all, as Clarityfiend said, WP:OR. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

from Sammetsfan: I REMOVED NOTHING FROM OF THE List of Michelin starred restaurants list! I take great offense at your false charges, for which you cannot have evidence because they are FALSE. The whole reason I wrote the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article is because no list existed. You really crossed the line. It's you and your LIES against everyone else and this article is going NOWHERE. Back off me. also from sammetsfan: Furthermore, the [List of Michelin starred restaurants]] country information is OUT OF DATE and the information on the distribution of three star restaurants in List of Michelin three starred restaurants is not out of date BECAUSE I WROTE IT USING 2012 STATS. You lose again. I'm done here. Back off hater.

Talking to me? Getting angry or shouting does not help. And I am certainly not a hater of Michelin restaurants. That would be a bit strange for someone who has written more dan 85 articles about Michelin starred restaurants Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
from lacysanchez2: I must say, those who want the article deleted are doing a terrific job at ignoring the original points. sammetsfan has every right to be heated. the fact of the matter is the article has original and accurate information found nowhere else. a list of michelin three star restaurants, the only list that exists on wikipedia and the only up-to-date list i can seem to find online, is of good use. especially because of the country distribution stuff, which is the only up to date information on the distribution of three star restaurants by country. and especially because of the images with their original and interesting captions. one of my favorite articles, seriously. it is of great use. I think sammetsfan does not realize there is more than 1 person who wants to remove it but still...he's right. he's got the superior argument, as the unsigned user said. - lacysanchez2 (talk) ^(contribs) 11:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Sammetsfan: If I'm mistaken about the history of these articles (and I don't think I am, but I'm not perfect), I apologize. The available evidence in the histories does seem to support me. Even so, if I made you feel like I was attacking you, I'm sorry about that, and it wasn't my intent. I would appreciate it if you could remain civil, but I'm not taking it personally because I understand why you might feel attacked.

That said, I'd like to make a point - even assuming I'm wrong about the history, even assuming that you're right about the reasons for the new info, I would still be recommending a merge. I would be doing so on the grounds that althoug the existing list was insufficient in its original state, one list is still preferable to multiple lists unless it gets ridiculously long. I suggest that instead of creating the new one, you could have done a major cleanup, improvement, and bringing-up-to-date of the old one. And merging the new one into the old one can be done in such a way that it has the same end result as that cleanup effort. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

from Sammesfan: I apologize for becoming so uncivil and taking it so personally, but the list is very long and there are unique details to the three star restaurants worth mentioning on a separate page. I'm sorry I'm not superman but the cleanup of the original page is quite a project waiting to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacysanchez2 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me: "from Sammesfan" but posted by Lacysanchez2?? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

from Lacysachez2: Sorry, we are brother and sister and share a computer. I'm defending him firmly here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacysanchez2 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Just step back and look at the article. It's totally necessary and full of detail. A model article for WikiPedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacysanchez2 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)][reply]

It appears this matter has been settled, no? The argument for this article's deletion has been thoroughly put to rest. When can we get rid of the notice that reads "This article is being considered for deletion" on top of the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article?
- No, actually, it hasn't. These discussions are supposed to last a week (give or take a couple of days), barring everyone being in agreement. Some are still in favor of deletion, and some (like me) are in favor of merging this back into the original as a way of improving the original. This was posted on the 15th, therefore it's due to close on the 22nd (Thursday). The administrator who closes this discussion will decide what the consensus of the group is indicating at the end of that time period. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake then. I guess the argument for deletion comments in support of a merge. I can support a merge, although i think it would make the List of Michelin starred restaurants article too long and complex, only if all the details of this article can remain. I feel like the article List of Michelin three starred restaurants is perfect. It serves a purpose of providing a detailed list of the three starred restaurants. I can't really imagine a logical consensus determining that the article is not worthy. The only logical consensus I can imagine us coming to is one that realizes the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article is terrific.

Another problem with a merge is that the List of Michelin starred restaurants is out of date and requires tremendous expansion and clean up. Why not just leave the List of Michelin three starred restaurants as it is- up to date and complete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammetsfan (talk • contribs) 18:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not a problem, because the merger with solve (part of) the outdated information. But the article still warrents so stand alone article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well instead of disrespecting my hard work on this article by merging it with a messy and out of date article, we could just leave it as it is- harmless, helpful, informational and detailed. The argument to merge is wildly weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammetsfan (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another argument against the merge and against deletion:
- The article has a detailed list of each restaurant that has received a three star rating. If it was to be merged, this insanely long list, with information on the location and chef at each restaurant, would be accompanied with no up to date or complete list of restaurants that have received one or two stars. If someone is willing to provide us with a list of restaurants, up to date, that have received one and then two stars from Michelin (as this list is essentially impossible to find), then a merge would be alot more understandable. You see what I'm saying? As is, I agree with sammetsfan than a merge would be silly and the argument for one is tremendously pitiful. Lacysanchez2 19:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like we are making some progress. Can we agree that the article should not be merged unless someone is willing to provide a detailed and up-to-date list of one and two starred restaurants with location and chef- as I have done for three starred restaurants? I would allow for a merge there. Seems like the only reasonable compromise. sammetsfan 19:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that that is the best option/only reasonable compromise. There is clearly no reason to delete the excellent article unless all it's information can be accompanied by equally excellent information on one and two starred restaurants in the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article. adirondacks 19:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.207.98 (talk) [reply]
- I hope someone is willing to create a full list of one and two starred restaurants with location and chef included, but in order to merge, up to date information on the distribution of countries would also have to be included, as well as a list of the number of one and two star restaurants per year (2005-present). So, a merge can happen, but there needs to be alot of work done before that is even close to appropriate. A this point, leave the List of Michelin three starred restaurants as it is, as it is excellent, and hopefully someone can work on a merge that provides detail. appletalk 19:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — appletalk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All right then, I think we've reached a consensus. The information from the List of Michelin three starred restaurants shall merge with the List of Michelin starred restaurants article and the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article will thus be deleted, if and only if there is information of identical detail about one and two starred restaurants provided within the List of Michelin starred restaurants article. (So no merge right now/quite yet)

Agreed. I think we've reached a terrific compromise and consensus.
To Closing Admin: My !vote has not changed. I advocate a merge, followed by a delete of the separate article. I am going to recuse myself now from further participation in this discussion as I cannot think of anything else to say without becoming uncivil to the sockpuppets/meatpuppets/canvassing blatantly taking place in this discussion, but please review the edit history of this discussion before you close it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why a merge before a clean-up of the List of Michelin starred restaurants. You spitefully wish to see a perfect article get deleted without explaining your reasoning. The argument for rushing a merge and getting rid of a great article is essentially non existant.
- I support that opinion whole hearted! I have the nasty feeling that the whole discussion was in fact between undersigned, Jorgath and Clarityfriend one one side and Sammetsfan & reincarnations on the other side. I have never before seen an author so overly satisfied with his own work. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, I am very satisfied with my work. Again, there is no argument against waiting to merge until a clean up. The consensus for a merge only after clean up of the List of Michelin starred restaurants makes the most sense, no? I feel you are not looking to compromise, but be unnecessarily stuck in your original idea/stubborn.
Keep - these are the best of the best, and a stand-alone list may be useful. Alternately, merge as has been suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be too immature, but thank you- it is good to have yet another supporter on my side. Despite the desperately false and accusatory claims of User:Night of the Big Wind, I think I do have quite a bit more people here on my side.
My closing argument: I feel that a merge, while it is not something I would suggest, would be appropriate only if the article List of Michelin three starred restaurants is merged with List of Michelin starred restaurants after the latter article is sufficiently cleaned up and updated. Otherwise, why take such an excellent and detailed and up to date and accurate article and put it in with a mess of outdated and incomplete information? We should keep the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article for the sake of providing an informed list of the most prestigious restaurants in the world. Those who are advocating for an immediate merge are consistently unable to produce an argument in reply to the several brilliant and detailed arguments in support of keeping the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article as it is. Here is another possible compromise, as my side seems to be the only side interested in consensus:
- Delete the List of Michelin starred restaurants, as it is out of date, incredibly incomplete and badly disorganized. Once adequate information on the lists of Michelin two starred restaurants and Michelin one starred restaurants is available, a master list can be compiled into one, perhaps less detailed master list with links to lists of one, two and three starred restaurants. Since there was no actual argument presented against the last compromise, is there any argument against this one? I personally still support the original compromise if I had to choose.
Why should we do that? It is not for you to decide how the merge is done. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Michelin starred restaurants. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that L2O in Chicago also previously had 3 stars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.161.28 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to List of Michelin starred restaurants And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious abuse[edit]

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

There is no solid referenced definition of what "religious abuse" is. One person's abuse is another's use. Is it abuse of religion to stand in a pulpit and tell congregants that unrepentant sinners are doomed to an awful eternity in Hell, or is that (as implied in the unreferenced lead of this article) abuse? Who tells it's one or the other? Similarly, it is considered a religious abuse to use your religion for politics or secular ends? Really, is the Roman Catholic Church's anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment stances, which seek to change secular law, an abuse of the religion, or merely living (or using) it? Any violent initiation rites are contended to be an abuse of religion - thus, are those religions that practice circumcision abusive per se? Continuing to read the drivel in the article, one finds that one can abuse religion even with the best of intention (where most ought think that abusers should at least know they're doing wrong), such as convincing someone's mom to leave hospital and put her health in God's hands through prayer. Frankly, this article is unsalvageable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are a fair number of academic articles and books on "religious abuse". It is only to be expected that different authorities have differing ways to define "religious abuse". There are countless different definitions of "bullying" for example. This article is in a flabby state and there is a lot of room for improvement but no reason to delete it.--Penbat (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work, should obviously be improved but this specific subject is notable and the article does not fall into any of the other criteria for deletion. We have some related articles on specific issue, but this could be a great article to cover the broader issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well referenced and the topic is well known though interpretations may vary. The forms of abuse are defined within the article creating scope for the definition given. It should be noted that the article is broad and might also include non traditional and lesser known belief systems not formally recognized as religions.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but as a disambiguation page. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I envision something like what's at Ecclesiastical ordinances. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that he has not (yet) met the requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL or of the WP:GNG JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Varin Mehta[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he has played in the Belgium Second Division and for reasons based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, the Second Division is not sourced as fully pro meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On first reading it looks like the Belgian team have taken the guy on purely because of the fee coughed up by his gulliable diamond trader parents. "Belgian rules" indeed! The main claim to notability seems to be that he is one of relatively few (four) Indians to get a pro contract abroad. If this has generated coverage in the Indian or Belgian press then it might pass WP:GNG. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He has generated much hype and indian football fans knew him.^[1] Preetam040 (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Okay how many reliable sources do we need to make him notable (passing WP:GNG). If you tell me I can gather some papers from India (and some from Belgium). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of the number of sources, but the significance of those sources. If you can find anything that goes beyond routine sports journalism, he would pass WP:GNG. My research indicates that it does not exist, but don't let that stop you from looking. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First of all he is the 4th indian to ply his trade in foreign league,it create awareness amongs the indian fans.And it was mention that he has not played in pro league if u see then many players like Saumik Dey ,Charan Rai have their pages who are playing in I-League then why not for varin because i think that Belgian Second Division is much professional than I-league and the Belgian Second Division is the second-highest division in the Belgian football league system after the Belgian Pro League .Secondly Varin is more popular than Saumik and charan...Apart from that Royal Antwerp F.C. is one of the oldest and popular club of belgium for whom he is playing and he is in first team.... Preetam040 (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the nomination, the comparison to I-League players is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS claim, which is never grounds for notability. That playing in the Belgian second division doesn't grant notability is a well established consensus, not to mention the fact that Mehta is yet to play in that league. His "debut" referred to in the article was a pre-season friendly. The fact that he is the fourth Indian play abroud is also not relevant, since there is no guideline that says it makes him inherently notable, and he has not received significant coverage because of it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The point is that he hasn't plied his trade, as he hasn't actually played. There are a lot of previous cases which have shown sitting on the bench is not an establishment of notability. Recreate in the future after he has played a professional league match. Cloudz 679 06:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sorry Preetam but I did look. Other than routine news there is nothing that states that Varin is notable. I agree with Cloudz. This article can be recreated anytime. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle at the Meadowlands II[edit]

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

Game fails WP:GNG and is not considered a "classic" or "miracle" game by the Eagles, Giants or NFL community at large. A great ending to an otherwise normal game, yes, a classic worth its own article, nope. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. No significant media coverage beyond routine game coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:SPORTSEVENT. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like fan enthusiasm to me... Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing great and notable about this game. ZappaOMati (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. All contributors but one consider that our inclusion criteria are not met. Sandstein 19:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe Muegge[edit]

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

I think the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people. Tobias Kuhn (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tobias Kuhn (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. Although this person has authored a number of scientific papers, he does not appear to have been himself the subject of "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" per WP:BASIC. Does not appear to meet the WP:PROF test either –given that simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy the professor test. No evidence that the person's research has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline. --Edcolins (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even the slightest evidence of notability that I can find.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Where are you guys looking? Yes, this article has certainly not been updated in a while, however, I just started working on it. And yes, this person has been the subject of secondary resources, in fact, he has been interviewed by one of the most prominent living translation scholars, Anthony Pym [2], and several other sources e.g. [3], [4]. He has been invited to speak at the most prominent conferences in the field, most recently at the World Congress of the International Federation of Translators, where he was one of the few presenters involved in multiple sessions [5], and he has been presenting at highly visible industry events, e.g. GALA webinars [6], IMUG meetups [7] Also, Muegge is one of the few educators in the translation field who is currently embracing cloud computing [8] and social networking [9]. Several months ago, I started working on articles in this category. Let me work on this one some more (there are plenty of references and resources!), and I am confident that this article will be a strong one by comparison with some of the others in this category. --Zorquis (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interview posted on Facebook isn't a published secondary source independent of the subject (WP:BASIC). I have also looked at the other references you have provided and I don't see anything out there showing that this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). --Edcolins (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at the Translation Scholars Interviews? Here is the series description: "Interviews with researchers and theorists who work on translation, along with some seminars. Presented by the Intercultural Studies Group in Tarragona, Spain." This is literally a "Who's Who" in Translation Studies: Alan Melby, Michael Cronin, Daniel Gile, Mona Baker, to name just a few, are all there. So yes, this is not only an independent secondary source, it's a high-profile one at that. In addition, he clearly meets two other notability criteria for academics, i.e. "3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)" Muegge is a member of the U.S. delegation to Technical Committee 37 of the International Organization for Standardization [10] and as the appointed Chair of the Translation and Localization Management Program, he also meets "6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." --Zorquis (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid that Zorquis' interpretation of the WP:PROF criteria is incorrect. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I cite WP:PROF incorrectly? Please elaborate and support your opinion.--Zorquis (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cite it correctly, you interpret it incorrectly. Being Chair of some program is generally not considered to be "a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society". Read the notes in WP:PROF. What is meant here is president of a notable university, president of a major international scientific society, etc. Neither is being a member of an ISO commission considered to be "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". An ISO commission really is not comparable to a National Academy of Sciences. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF explicitly cites membership in IEEE as satisfying Criterion 3 of WP:PROF. There can be no doubt that being a member of ISO, which is a highly influential, highly selective international organization, is at least as prestigious as being a member of IEEE. --Zorquis (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zorquis, WP:PROF does not say that being member of IEEE makes somebody notable. It says that being "a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)" makes an academic/professor notable. The article IEEE Fellow explains the difference between an IEEE Fellow and an IEEE member. --Edcolins (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, delegates to ISO TCs are invited, based on outstanding contributions to the field. As the number of reps in an ISO TC is very small, being a member of an ISO TC is at least as prestigious as being an IEEE fellow; plus members in ISO TCs are certainly much more influential than IEEE fellows.--Zorquis (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you take a look at who is a member of ISO/TC 37, you will only see the names of movers and shakers in the field of translation/terminology theory and practice, e.g. Sue Ellen Wright, Alan Melby, Arle Lommel, ... and Uwe Muegge. [11]--Zorquis (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Samir Omar[edit]

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

Unless i'm horribly mistaken, this article seems to be a WP:HOAX. While the event described in it may have happened, it is not supported by the sources at all. If you look at the three sources, you'll see that they were all made in 2011 and are discussing Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb, not this Samir Omar. I tried a Google News search and general Google search for both his name and variations therein, but came up with nothing. Silver seren^C 19:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Definitely smells like a hoax.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, a hoax, or rather, so dramatic that it looks more like propaganda fiction. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion. Not a Hoax, this happens every day in Syria, I will however note that the article is almost completely unsourced, and the only definitive source regarding the death of Samir Omar is in Arabic. Sopher99 (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic source is from May 27, 2011 and it is also about Hamza. Here, see it in English. Do you have a single news source about Samir Omar that even corroborates his death? Silver seren^C 03:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a Hoax, this happens every day in Syria" - what, the same person is killed each day....? Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children are deliberately targeted each day in Syria according to Unicef and Amnesty . Samir Omar's case is not unusual. Samir's Omar death is entirely unreferenced however. Sopher99 (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may be very well true that "Children are deliberately targeted each day in Syria" but that is irrelevant. This article is completely unsubstantiated with any sources, and has the earmarks of a hoax with the bogus references in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per withdrawn by nominator, no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) Dru of Id (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in Malta[edit]

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

merge back to list of busniesses in malta. Deleted all spam links, one station left with bluelink Gaijin42 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn based on the complete rewrite which conforms with standard lists of this nature elswhere in wikipedia. kudos to neutralhomer. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Segal–Shale–Weil distribution[edit]

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

Zero references for this phrasein Zentralblatt or Mathscinet. Nothing useful in Google Books or Scholar. Not notable at best, hoax at worst: article appears to be complete nonsense. Boodlepounce (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - have added a couple of citations. Expert opinion likely needed on m-morphism but deletion seems an odd manoeuvre here. metaplectic group also looks fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- References added refer to Segal–Shale–Weil representation which appears to be quite different. The term under discussion does not appear in the literature. Deletion does not seem odd for a concept that has not been written about. Boodlepounce (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've been caught out by Steve Mann, who writes here as Glogger (talk · contribs). Your cited sources are about the Segal–Shale–Weil representation, also known as the oscillator representation or the metaplectic representation. See Talk:Steve Mann for complaints going back to 2004 about the "neologisms created on Wikipedia". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyborgLog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absement, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uberveillance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technomad, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-cyborgism for just some of these.
  The Segal–Shale–Weil representation isn't generally called the Segal–Shale–Weil distribution in the literature, and metaplectomorphism (AfD discussion) doesn't seem to occur in the literature either. Unlike some of the prior neologisms that he's put on Wikipedia, not even Steve Mann himself has used that name outwith Wikipedia. He's used it in Wikipedia, of course — when he wrote chirplet transform, for starters.
  Uncle G (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you may be right but this area is so technical that we really need an expert to give us a hand here. What I can say is that if this unpronounceable mouthful is the same as the representation then we just need a Redirect; if it's not the same and uncited then we need a Delete; if it's an interesting bit of additional math with sources then it's a Keep. And we shouldn't jump till we're sure. I will change my !vote as needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "distribution" is not the same thing as a "representation", so there is no way that the two articles have the same subject. (It is the same metaplectic group described in both articles, but that also is not the same subject as either of the two articles.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thank you, then it must be nonsense/muddle/hoax (strike as appropriate). Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a Weil distribution (content of a Bourbaki seminar by Weil on Tate's thesis); and it's in the same area of functional analysis applied to theta functions; but it isn't a direct hit. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I get no scholar hits for the term "Segal–Shale–Weil distribution". The article is so vague that it is unclear whether this is even related to the Segal–Shale–Weil representation, but it feels made-up a la the Bogdanov affair. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Just figured someone should vote.) Nice reference to Bogdanov affair. It was an interesting read. -- Taku (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously a WP:MADEUP term. -- 202.124.74.111 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think, but there is a need to investigate further. Per [12], the author "Epimetheus Christer Hiram" has written on this topic; and this then leads us back to VDM Publishing. Looks like some scamming of technical areas via some of our more obscure technical titles. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metaplectomorphism[edit]

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

No references in Math Reviews or Zentralblatt. One mention in Google Scholar, zero useful in Google Books. At best not a notable concept, probably a one-off, possibly even a hoax (article appears to be nonsense). Boodlepounce (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See what I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segal–Shale–Weil distribution about not even the inventor of this protologism using it outwith Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No scholar hits. Yet another WP:OR piece from the serial original researcher Glogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No meaningful hits, WP:MADEUP term. -- 202.124.74.111 (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SimCar[edit]

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

Non-notable virtual competition. I can't find any reliable source of notability. Readro (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletethe rFactor website list it, but it's an aggregator and thus not reliable. It could be merged to rFactor if some primary sources are found. Diego (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG -- no independent, broad coverage sources found. Merge any sourceable content, but I don't see any immediate sources for use. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armaroli Sim Racing World Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable virtual competition. I can't find any reliable source of notability. Readro (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Research reveals no coverage to establish notability. Salvidrim! 19:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Lack of coverage in reliable, third party sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worth saying to rFactor, otherwise pretty much delete as failing WP:GNG without reliable, significant, secondary, multiple source coverage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip morris & son[edit]

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

Despite its longevity, this local vendor from Hereford does not appear to have made a sufficient name for itself to be considered notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this related to Philip Morris USA? If yes, merge pertinent information, if not delete and redirect. EnvoyClass (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't related. Redirect to where? Is there another article that's relevant to this business? 79.123.73.226 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this company is not related to the American cigarette manufacturer, a redirect is not a proper action. Since this local store is not a subsidiary of any other company, there is no valid redirect target. Either keep or delete. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It IS plausible that somebody would type this in while looking for the cigarette manufacturer, and a redirect would be appropriate. EnvoyClass (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your logic. The name of the US tobacco company is Philip Morris USA. If one were looking for that company, by the time they had typed in "Philip Morris", the search lookahead feature would already have offered Philip Morris USA as the most likely target. By offering Philip Morris & Son as a likely target, the rare searcher who knows of the store in Hereford might select that option, and be brought quite surprisingly to an article about a tobacco product manufacturer, rather than the article about the local retailer that they were expecting. Following Wikipedia's principle of least astonishment, we should really not have a redirect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Morris & Son in the UK has been Est.1845 so history exists. For a long time it has been thought that it is connected to the tobacco industry which is incorrect. Please keep and add to the history. Dean Johnston (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. While I did find a couple of third party sources that talked about the store, namely here [13] and here [14], I'm not sure how reliable they are since they read more like advertisments than credible sources to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please keep in mind that the posting at your-story.org is actually a press release published by the company itself, so it doesn't really count toward notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the article nor anything else I have seen provides any evidence that this business satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Students for Democracy[edit]

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

This appears at first blush to be an article about an organization, but on closer examination, it is an article about a website that apparently aspires to be a combination news aggregator and forum. It has been tagged for 4 1/2/ years for having no references, other than in-line links back to the website, and for 3 years as an orphan. I can find no independent, third-party reliable sources about this website whatsoever. Against the possibility that, as a website, it might not get much mainstream press, I took a look at how active it is. On its forums, it claims 915 active members, and a total of a little over 107,000 posts over the course of 11 years (roughly 1000 posts per year), and the scroll on the left side of the page indicates that roughly 40% of those posts are by six users.[15] It has no traffic stats per Alexa[16][17]. The article is entirely promotional, about a website that appears to be the completely non-notable playground of a handful of users. Fladrif (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and while "students for democracy" brought up a lot of hits, 99.9% of those hits did not reference this particular organization. More specific searches brought up primary sources and a few junk hits, but nothing reliable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N and WP:WEB. EnvoyClass (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ WP:N OldGeorgie (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Blocked as a sock puppet of WizardlyWho. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. No Alexa rank means it isn't in the world's top 10 million or so websites and thus really really non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Kronenberg[edit]

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

Non-notable fringe personality Salimfadhley (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Kronenberg's career seems to be mostly associated with pseudoscientific, non-notable magnetic water-treatment devices. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 15. Snotbot t • c » 13:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone can certainly be notable for their involvement in pseudoscientific areas, particularly if he is one of the more prominent such individuals in a particular field of study. That does not appear to be the case here, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough references for WP:N. -- 202.124.74.182 (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 President Cup Malaysia[edit]

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

Contested PROD, original concern was No independent notability from Malaysia President Cup. User seems to be using the article as WP:NOTWEBHOST. Also to be bundled with this nomination, season articles of the same competition from previous years. Cloudz 679 12:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally nominated articles, which do not assert independent notability, neither are they supported by reliable sources, follow:

Cloudz 679 12:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 12:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence of independent notability. Run through each year briefly at Malaysia President Cup. Giant Snowman 13:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced red link farm that is totally unsourced and has no value for navigation to other articles. Stedrick (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current state of these articles is that of an unsourced statistics dump, so no need to keep them as independent articles. Include a brief summary of each season at Malaysia President Cup, if necessary. The article might also be far better suited for inclusion at the Malaysian Wikipedia if it has sufficient sources. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Siegel[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable individual. No significant coverage in reliable sources as per WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty obvious non-notability. A small amount of references by similarly non-notable authors in long-forgotten alt-health books is all that scholar turns up. Yet another example of an old AfD not actually bothering to check whether usable sources exist, and just saying that they did a search, got some results, therefore, keep. Further, what sources are used seem to be being abused: Off-hand mentions of him are being used to make direct claims, using WP:SYNTH. 86.** IP (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - have added a couple of sources. Siegel is an extremely well-known new age writer and speaker, and is considered among the most influential people in that area, as shown by the Watkins list. I carry no brief for his brand, but his name is instantly recognisable, and I was surprised to see it on the AfD list. The article was not ideal but the man is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not sure such obscure, fringe sources are really enough to show notability. 86.** IP (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- You have to be kidding! The Watkins list is pure nonsense - it claims that Bernie Seigel at #25 is higher ranked in spirtual influence than Joseph Ratzinger #45 who just happens to be the leader of the Catholic Church and Rowan Williams who is the Archbishop of Cantebury the theological leader of all Anglicans. The Watkins list is definitely not a reliable source.--Salimfadhley (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Spiritual/New Age source ≠ fringe source. The two sources are good, they meet the criteria for reliable sources. I am impressed by his position (25) on Watkins' list. Looks like a well-thought out and educated list, and I must note that we have articles on many of the listees, right down to #100 Marion Woodman. I would like to see at least one more substantive source, since I presume the Watkins' list entry is rather brief (really the magazine with the full list should be cited along with a link to the web page with the top 10). Yworo (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spirtual/new age sources are fringe sources as the new age movement is a fringe movement (i.e it's a small subculture). I'm not sure what your basis for saying otherwise is. The Marion Woodman article you point out is also poorly sourced and also seems non-notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's with respect not a fair deduction.

1) Firstly, while New Age is smaller than the market for, say, beer, it consists of at least some millions around the world.

2) Secondly, small does not mean lunatic/extremist fringe, which is what WP:FRINGE is about. New Age is in part a spiritual movement, in part commerce, in part self-help: all being part of normal life, and indeed covered by a detailed and very well-sourced WP article. New Age is not fringe.

3) Thirdly, Siegel is BOTH New Age and Medical, with distinctive and notable features of his own, like his cancer group therapy work. And he is demonstrably well known as a writer and speaker.Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't appear to be well known for his medical career. WP:FRINGE isn't about lunatics, I suggest you check again. Size isn't too relevant a factor; the creationists movement is also quite large, it is still a fringe movement. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your prejudices are showing, I'm afraid, and it is not appreciated. Besides, as much as I don't ascribe to their beliefs, the Creationists Movement probably deserves an article, as it is notable. Notability has little to do with scientific or factual basis; if it did, no religions would pass your litmus test, or comedy, or works of fiction. Fringe movements can also be notable, which is why you've heard of them. I'm sure you will find no responsible source (if any source at all) who has called Bernie Siegel a "lunatic"; that is your prejudice based on your personal feelings about his field of interest and profession, and it does not belong in this discourse.Rosencomet (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well lookie here: Creationism HAS an article; a BIG one, with 198 citations. So do Unicorns, the Church of the SubGenius, the Flat Earth Society, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Scientology and a whole lot of other notable subjects you might think are "lunatic", "nonsense", or "fringe". And they just might be, but they're still notable. Just FYI.Rosencomet (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You and Chiswick Chap are the only ones that referred to Bernie Siegel having beliefs that are lunatic or nonsense, I most certainly did not. I fully agree that New Age should have an article even though it is a fringe movement, this isn't an AfD for the New age movement. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bernie Seigel is a very well-known New Age author and lecturer. His books, about a dozen of them (plus audiobooks) sell very well, and are all published by major presses rather than vanity presses. I agree with Chiswick Chap; I'm surprised to see him nominated for deletion. I think it's just that this article has been both too short and too neglected. I've improved it a bit.Rosencomet (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any evidence the books sell well, the sources used to establish him as a well-known author and lecturer are fringe sources and seem inappropriate (I've never heard of bigspeak, it doesn't seem notable itself) . I checked out two of his books on Amazon, his ranking for one was 828,891th and for the other over 100 thousandth. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be relying on volatile Amazon figures. Recall that Siegel has been selling books for many years, and all book sales decline (often steeply) with time. However to reply in your terms, his 1988 book Love, Medicine and Miracles was today at #9,133 on amazon.com, not bad for something that's been in print for over 20 years.

BTW there are hundreds of Bernie Siegel citations in the New York Times. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked through them? Most seem to be book lists: contrast [18] with [19]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few to the article with citations. Of course there are many listings of his famous, well-known, celebrated, admired, best-selling books... ;-} Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you have added is a primary sourced sentence and a sentence based on a one line mention of Bernie Siegel which seem undue. Remember that wikipedia is not a newspaper; Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. WP:NOT#NEWS. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article in the New York Times regarding 1988 best-sellers ^[2] states, "The leading nonfiction paperback was Love, Medicine & Miracles, which is a book by Bernie S. Siegel about the importance of the patient's mind and emotions in the treatment of serious illness." and later in the article, "The listings are based on computer-processed sales figures from 3,000 bookstores and from representative wholesalers with more than 28,000 other retail outlets, including variety stores and supermarkets." Rosencomet (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ A #9 charting in a NYT sub-chart is not particulary notable. Most of his books did not even chart that high. He's not notable as an author or as an alt-med proponent. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book remained on the bestseller list for over a year. It has been continuously in print since 1988. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That he made it on an nyt bestseller list for 1988 isn't relevant for notability requirements; see WP:AUTHOR. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This hardly counts as "enduring notability". He has not had a book in the charts for over 20 years. To be continuously in print is meaningless for WP:N since these days books are printed on demand. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the book stayed on the paperback best-sellers list from 1988 at least into 1994. And this wasn't the only book by Siegel to make the list: Peace, Love and Healing was also a best-seller. Rosencomet (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have read on this topic for years and I have never heard of Bernie Siegel, he appears to be not notable, he is a minor new thought writer, there does not appear to be much coverage for his ideas. Article should probably be deleted, theres 1000s of authors out there like him they don't all need a separate article. If he is notable within the field of energy medicine then perhaps he could be mentioned on that article, but as previously mentioned I have never heard of the dude & I am quite well read in this area! GreenUniverse (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how you missed him; I've been reading and working in this field for decades, and he is very well known to me. He's been featured on Oprah, Donahue, and many other prominent talk shows on both TV and radio. His books can be found in self-help and alternative medicine sections of bookstores around the world. He is quoted in other well-known authors' books often. Instead of relying on your memory, why not research it a bit? Do a google search on books mentioning him, or articles printed in magazines and websites in his areas of expertise? Rosencomet (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do any kind of science books mention him :)... Comet I have looked him up, he seems a very happy chap with a nice message but can you provide any sources for him? I noticed theres a few on google books but I don't think these would count as they are coming from very fringe like books, New York Time is useful, but theres already too many of those. GreenUniverse (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, let's start with the basics. The article is a biography. Can anyone find a reliable source that talks about when and where he was born and his early life? The above comments regarding how important he is only matters in Wikipedia if a reliable source writes in detail about it. We're not going to reward Siegel with a Wikipedia article for making #25 on a list, how many books he has sold, or who's heard of him. Wikipedia provides content and, unless there is sufficient reliable source material from which to develop an article, then we don't have the makings for a Wikipedia article. And this being the second AfD, arguments such as "we just need to fix it" carry little weight, especially since the first AfD was six years ago and the reliable source info has not yet come forth. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google news archives gives us 1910 hits. Hard to imagine under what circumstances there aren't enough sources in the google news archives alone to indicate notability.(olive (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- That's irrelevant: even the most cursory look at the results shows that most are not the same person as this one. There is, for instance, a wrestling promoter of the same name, as well as a financier. 86.** IP (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)86.** IP (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest a more than cursory look at 1900 hits.(olive (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is a bad metric for a keep, I suggest you provide specific examples. the first three results appear to be from different Bernie Seigels, I wonder how many of the rest are as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting the google hits alone are reason to keep. I am suggesting that within 1900 hits, even a glance indicates there are enough sources to indicate notability.(olive (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

*Comment per advertising this AfD. If we are canvassing editors from NB, only canvassing the Finge Theories NB hardly seems a neutral way to alert Wikipedia editors. I strongly suggest including other notice boards or removing the notice from the Fringe Theories NB. (olive (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It's perfectly acceptable to inform people on the FTN noticeboard as this is a way of centrally informing people (it's the primary board for dealing with undue and fringe material), it is not canvassing, the board isn't partisan, it simply informs a large group of interested editors (you can add FTN to your watchlist and be one of these interested editors). It's not put on other boards because there are no other relevant boards except maybe BLPN. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with posting on the Fringe Theories NB, lots of concern with posting only on the Fringe Theories NB which targets a specific group of editors, which defines canvassing. I've posted on the BLP/NB and RS/NB. I have no attachment to this article at all, but this should be dealt with properly. (olive (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Comment It seems people are trawling through the NYT and including even the briefiest of mentions in the article, some of which consistute primary sources and others which seem undue like these one line mentions: [20] [21] [22]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good RS article here [23] to start.(olive (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Strong keep based on news hits from template link at top of AFD. Articles from numerous newspapers, often in major cities, were devoted solely to his lectures. Some of these constitute the generic public relations type, but there are enough of greater length and depth to establish at least notability as a mass-market best-selling author. There's no lack of significant coverage from reliable sources. I've little knowledge of this field, but he was so well known that even I'd heard of him. I suspect part of the problem is that his greatest period of notability was in the 80s and 90s, but even so enough links--though some are pay-per-view-- still exist online to establish significance. Apologies if I've inadvertently included any of the following twice. [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. To me this isn't even a close one. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again we have more newspaper clippings, this is hardly indicative of enduring notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between 'newspaper clippings', which you're using pejoratively, and reliable sources eludes me. These are published articles about the subject, per WP:RELIABLE, which establish notability. Likewise, there is frequent mention of Siegel as a bestselling author. I've seen, and nominated for deletion, authors here that merit an AFD discussion for sheer lack of references regarding themselves or their books. This isn't one of them by a longshot. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to confuse reliable sourcing with notability, just because the content can be verified (most of the article appears based on does not mean we should have an article on it. The notability requirements are clear see WP:AUTHOR. That most of the sources people have found are from the 1988 era indicates that he does not have enduring notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No confusion at all. There's no prejudice against sources from another decade. As I noted below, articles about Siegel's work have been published for several decades, not just 1988. His inclusion in several anthologies, as listed in 'Further reading', establishes notability per WP:AUTHOR guidelines 1 and 2. Again, at top you said there was no significant coverage in reliable sources; now that their presence is clearly established you're parsing them with regard to their dates of publication and whether their existence merits an article. What's going on here? By which I mean, the article can use a clean up and addition of further reliable sources. It never should have been brought here. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just now glanced at the article itself, which offers multiple cites of reviews of the subject's books, by major newspapers, easily meeting guidelines per WP:AUTHOR. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is filling up with WP:PUFFERY to give it the impression of notability. That we are resorting to an article entirely filled with newspaper clippings seems to violate WP:NOT#NEWS. As the article stands it consists solely of clippings out of the NYT and the Los Angeles times, hardly a sign of enduring notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puffery and non-neutral content are easily removed. Articles, in these instances book reviews from the aforementioned papers, do establish significance as stated (to belabor the point) at WP:AUTHOR. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the 5 points in WP:AUTHOR do you think the individual meets. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a rapid reading at least #3: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. It's possible, given the popularity of his publications and the theories they proposed, that #1 and #2 will come into play. But even if not, I'm concerned that you're seeking to apply a more stringent interpretation of notability guidelines than I've seen before--in the initial rationale for deletion you wrote No significant coverage in reliable sources. These sources go beyond synthesis, and at the very least speak to an erstwhile broad cultural popularity. There are no guidelines clearly indicating a necessary duration of coverage to establish notability. Yet WP:NOTNEWSPAPER isn't applicable here because the subject did not receive coverage for an isolated incident, but has been the subject of coverage for his books and theories over the course of several decades. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the article most of the coverage was from around 1988 in relation to his book, this suggests that the book may be notable whilst he isn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The numerous sources provided on this page alone have addressed that. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already raised my issues with the current sourcing in the article (mostly primary sourcing). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and those concerned have been addressed here. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources shown for the subject to meet the GNG. The Steve 23:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, according to WP:NBOOK, books which have been on bestseller lists are notable. According to WP:AUTHOR, authors of bestselling books are notable. Exclusion of people for their spiritual or religious views that you do not share is non-neutral censorship. Yworo (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I'm not sure where you got that from since it isn't in WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK doesn't mention being on bestsellers lists. That is, neither mention anything about books being in bestselling lists as conferring notability. Noone is suggesting to exclude someone for their religious views etc. I suggest you look at the criteria given at WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Siegel's life and career are adequately covered by high level sources such as the Boston Globe ("Doctor of Hope"), the Historical dictionary of New Age movements, The encyclopedia of mental health, and the related Encyclopedia of Stress and Stress-related Diseases. At WP:AUTHOR he also meets the requirements for being widely cited and for creating a new method. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That recent tertiary sources mention him seems to confer some notability. My next issue then is if there is enough decent material in existence to create a good article. At the moment the article appears to be based off mostly primary sources (with no secondary sources to give due weight). We can use the tertiary sources to provide context etc for the lede. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If, by the nominator's suggestion, we're moving from the issue of notability toward that of crafting a good article, then the discussion here has become--no pun intended--academic. But for future reference, I'm not aware of a Wikipedia guideline stating a preference for recent sources in establishing notability. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We look for enduring notability. If there were a flurry of newspaper mentions in relation to the 1985-1990 where he published the book but not much of anything since then it would suggest his long term notability is probably negligible. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, and an unusual interpretation of what constitutes notability here. Could you provide precedents to support the claim If there were a flurry of newspaper mentions in relation to the 1985-1990 where he published the book but not much of anything since then it would suggest his long term notability is probably negligible? 99.156.65.73 (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enduring notability is nice but not necessary. If it were required, articles such as Locofocos and Come-outer could not exist, describing things from the 1800s that have no modern usage. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, they feature in many reliable sources across about 150 years, this appears to indicate enduring notability; here are some mentions amongst recent sources alone: [34], [35]. [36] [37]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, is there a Wikipedia guideline to support the rather subjective interpretation above re: 5 years of coverage being inadequate? And as I've noted several times, the sources listed here cover more than 5 years. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is moot anyway. The subject is covered in depth in at least two 2007 sources which I added to further reading. He is also mentioned in numerous sources more recent than that, though not in enough depth to add them to further reading. The characterization that he was only mentioned in publications in the 1980s is a false premise on which to base an argument. Several editors seem to be twisting both the facts and making up their own rules in a campaign to delete the article of this undisputably notable subject. They should find some better way to waste their time, because at this point that's all they are doing. Yworo (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be basing this assertion on your own misunderstanding of what a primary source is. A primary source is not limited to something that Bernie Siegel has written. In a source if the writer expresses an opinion, then that source is a primary source for that opinion. When you cite the New York times bestsellers list (which they created from data they are given) as supporting the statement that Siegel featured in the NYT bestsellers list then the NYT is a primary source. WP:RSEX in particular mentions the NYT as being a big primary source: More recently, primary sources have been put online, such as the complete run of the The Times, the New York Times and other major newspapers. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous and I'm quite sure you're wrong. Just go be wrong somewhere else. Yworo (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage of him and/or his books in notable publications (NYTimes, LATimes, BostonGlobe, etc.) to pass WP:GNG. I think that the arguments revolving around "New Age!", both pro and con, are not especially relevant. If mainstream publications review his works and the person, it passes WP:GNG. I'm also willing to bet that most readers of his books don't consider themselves New Agers, but I'm not a reliable or reputable source by any stretch of the imagination. First Light (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close as Keep. Nominator allows that detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources establishes notability. We're done here, folks. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm becoming satisfied that a somewhat decent article can be created if the sourcing issues are taken care of. I contrast the original article I nominated [38] to the article now [39]. Whilst it has issues they are probably fundamentally resolvable (or at least I hope so). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a helpful link, IRWolfie, and gives context to your reason for nomination. It seems a lot of the discussion initially centered on the fringe business, which was a detour. I think the article is salvageable, but needs further work. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of several tertiary sources appears to confer close to the level of enduring notability I was looking for to satisfy notability requirements. Whilst the article as it stands has issues, I think (or rather I hope) they are fundamentally resolvable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since sourcing issues were resolved. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with IRWolfie-, however I remain concerned that the article gives the impression of somebody far more mainstream and famous than I suspect he is. I am concerned that the article does not fully represent the mainstream view that his theories are fringe and have had no lasting impact outside the New Thought movement. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the sales of the book from 1986, and its longterm presence on the bestseller established a pop culture recognition which, though perhaps waning, is still in play--as mentioned above, this is not my bailiwick, but even I'm familiar with his name. I don't know what the mainstream take is on his theories, and whether they're regarded as fringe, but if sources can be found which address this then it would be relevant, so long as it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. And given the activity around this I imagine enough eyes are on the article to insure balance. As a throwaway observation what's impressed me about this process is the crafting of an acceptable article via a sometimes mildly contentious exchange. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The consensus seems to have shifted. I also feel that we have resolved the substantial NPOV & RS issues with the original article. I propose that we close this AFD discussion.

I agree; but you should sign your proposal.Rosencomet (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baker & Rannells[edit]

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

Very small law firm, no indication of notability in the article or that can be found in my own search. PROD declined by anon editor without explanation: [40]. TJRC (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TJRC (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any indication of notability either. And also: unambiguous advertising (G11 in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). --Edcolins (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 10 March 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, B music ian 09:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Refs only to first-party sources, business directories, etc. Seems a very ordinary firm with no indication in the article as to why it might be notable (reasons for notability might include: involvement in major cases or legal controversy, featured in other major news events, significant contribution to legal profession/jurisprudence/business, unique or highly atypical business, multiple notable partners...) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: user who removed PROD tag seems to have been involved in promoting the company[41]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Credits[edit]

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

Fails WP:N Soxwon (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - A video series, sounds notable, until you find out it is a video series on YouTube. No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG.~~ --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Weak~~ Keep - Never mind, I just noticed this was a 2nd nomination, and I read the previous nomination, and agreed with its consensus, can you or another bold contributor please state why this fails WP:N? Thanks! --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The show started as a YouTube series, however it has since been published by two large sites, the current(Penny Arcade) had a viewership of 3.5 million in 2010. The show is also notable for its organization of a boycott of the Electronic Entertainment Expo and its fundraising project's legal disputes. Although The current article does focus on descriptions of the show's episodes to much.--Blood sliver (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should tag it with {{cleanup AfD}} for more information besides plot summary? Or is there another maintenance tag that well fits it? --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems like a good move, and I cant think of any template that would work better.--Blood sliver (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The show is popular on the internet and now that its a partner of ScrewAttack, there's a broader coverage to the series. GamerPro64 04:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 16:09, 11 March 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, B music ian 09:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Other than some dubious sources such as non-notable blogs and "articles" that just redirect to Examiner pages (a site that's on Wikipedia's blacklist), I believe that this is a notable site, but I'll go through all of the sources first.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've gone through and cleaned up the obviously unusable links, which were predominantly blogs and a youtube video by people who wouldn't be considered notable and/or an absolute authority (the type that scholars quote in books and articles). There was some pretty big abuse of WP:RS going on in the article, such as links to TV tropes and such. I do believe that it was all in good faith, but I think that the article should probably be monitored to keep people from adding non-reliable sources to the article. There's more primary sources on the article than I'd like, which makes me wish we had a separate reference tag for primary sources. (It'd make it easier to clean up after!) In any case, the articles that remain show that the series does have notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Riposte[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, article is self-promotional. Largely unsourced and no reliable sources as to the group's notability, one source is a self-source since Hands off Venezuela is an affiliate of La Riposte's parent group and the article is credited as "written by La Riposte", the second source makes no reference to La Riposte and is therefore not a sign of its notability. Article reads largely like an advertisement for the organization. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep La Riposte has recently become a significant political force within the French Communist Party. While there's not much independent coverage of this subject matter in English, I was able to find one source covering La Riposte's role in the party's most recent congress which could be incorporated into the article: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1001850 Sickle and Hammer (talk) 06:38, 5 March 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) 00:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (at least as dab page) per WP:ATD. The article currently refers to newspapers from both the French Communist Party and Québec solidaire section of the International Marxist Tendency. Subject to notability of those publications (are they distinctly separate?), the article should at least exist as a dab page to French Communist Party and Québec solidaire. -- Trevj (talk) 11:01, 9 March 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, Wifione ^Message 08:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Urban fiction. There appears to be strong consenus in favor of merge/redirecting this article. As the a merge has now been done, deletion is no longer even a viable option due to text licensing. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hip-hop literature[edit]

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

Prod declined for no reason. Suggested merge to Urban literature, but I see nothing worth merging. Everything here is spammy and promotional, with only primary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Urban fiction. A read through the article shows that it refers to itself more as urban literature, which itself redirects to urban fiction. I've heard this term used before, but only as another term for urban fiction as a whole. As a term for a specific niche of the wider genre (like how high fantasy is a niche of the wider fantasy genre), I don't see where there's enough to show that this specific niche has enough sources to warrant having an individual article. From what I found it definitely seems to be on its way, but most of the sources I found use it as an alternate name for urban fiction.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 March 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) 00:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Urban fiction. Actually, almost this entire article could be nicely pasted into "Urban fiction" exactly as it is right now, just under the header "Major publishers". Create a new header in "Urban fiction, copy edit the opening and closing paragraphs, and there you go. It contains some useful, informative details worth adding to WP. OttawaAC (talk) 01:51, 9 March 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, Wifione ^Message 08:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Merged the list from this page and other than this, I don't see what else could be added that isn't already on the UL page. I do want to note that on March 1st user DGG posted a "merge" suggestion, with no one commenting on the UL article with any objection to the merge (or at all). I was wondering if this AfD could be closed early as a "merge and redirect" since so far both of the people voicing an opinion in the debate (myself and Ottawa) are agreed that a merge would be best and since there were no voiced objections against the merger proposal by DGG. I've done the merge, so all we need now is a redirect.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is the most sensible option; there's a lot of overlap. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - much of the article is already in Urban Fiction anyway, they seem to be talking about the same thing.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 14:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. While looking through this article's history I noticed that only 1 source was provided so I'm deleting this article per WP:BLP. If someone wants to write a new sourced article from scratch then be my guest. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Paya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG - WP:PROF AND WP:AUTHOR - article appears to be an ongoing uncited attempt to attack him and an attempt to raise the notability of some critic named - Fardin Jahanbin - Youreallycan 05:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, unsourced, notability not established. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He has a Persian article. He has written more than ten books.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some of the iso numbers ot investigate the notability of these books - this one, scribd link seems to be an article in a magazine? Paya, Ali. ‘Dialogue’ in a ‘real world’: quixotic pursuit or sine qua non?, International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2002. - its not the number of publications you have but there notworthyness and publication figugures that matter. Also, having a persian article does not mean you are notable enough for asn english wikipedia article - please provide a link to the Persian article for us to investigate - thanks - Youreallycan 15:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the Paya's article in Persian Wikipedia.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:57, 9 March 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) 00:52, 8 March 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, Wifione ^Message 08:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:PROF: this indicates he doesn't hold a high enough position (just assistant/visiting professor); Google Scholar shows minimal cites. I can't read Persian, but the English-language sources are lacking. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may can satisfy WP:PROF, I'm not sure. I mean more specifically this criteria: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". He is commonly regarded as being one of the main figures in the field of Futures studies in Iran. As he can be considered a Public intellectual, I can provide sources from mainstream media, like this from Iran newspaper.Farhikht (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Harrison (singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. – Kosm1 fent 08:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are references if you look. The Times of Malta has covered her career in great detail. I've added references to her page.

Note for anyone researching: there's a lot of Sarah Harrisons. There's an author[42], a web designer, another even less famous singer[43], an artist[44], a bureaucrat[45], and several professionals. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:35, 6 March 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) 00:50, 8 March 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, Wifione ^Message 07:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not really much breadth of coverage but possibly sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG.--Michig (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gogyōshi[edit]

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

Notability is highly dubious. Gbooks finds nothing. Gwebsearch results are confined to user-generated matter (Google Groups etc). Gogyōshi appears to be a breakaway form of Gogyōka (whose notability itself has been the subject of debate). Of the 5 references, 4 are to blogs or self-published books (Lulu). The 2 ELs are to blogs. The wp:fr and wp:ja articles are nearly identical to this one. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about an (alleged) Japanese verse form. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 1 March 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) 00:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe establishing the legitimacy of gogyoshi as an authentic - if nascent - Japanese poetic form may be possible via reference to a series of essays (with cited sources) written by Aizu Taro in the summer of 2011. In these essays, Mr. Aizu traces the history and development of a native five-line, non-tanka poem originating in late Japanese folk-song and continuing up to the present day. These texts remain untranslated at present but the Japanese originals may be accessed through the archives at Mr. Aizu's blog 'The Lovely Earth' (http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/lovelyearth_mont).

The growing use of the word 'gogyoshi' to define their work by poets writing five-line free verse in North America and Europe as well as in Japan, may signal a trend. It could prove indicative of a grassroots acceptance and adoption of the form as it continues to be used and developed by international practitioners. A cursory review of poetic 'tags' at 'Twitter' alone will give some idea of the ubiquity of the term's use among contemporary short-form poets. I would urge a period of further waiting and watching regarding gogyoshi's development (if any) prior to deletion of its entry by Wikipedia. Brian Zimmer OMZ57 (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMZ57 (talk • contribs)

Comment - OMZ57 asserts simultaneously that gogyoshi is (1) a nascent poetic form, and (2) that its origins can be traced to Japanese folk-song. Whatever about this contradiction, his assertions are based exclusively on blog postings by an author who has himself failed the test of notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taro Aizu). The second part of OMZ57's comment relates to user-generated content on Twitter referring to itself as 'gogyoshi'. All of the above appears to be fail in terms of establishing notability per WP guidelines. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:49, 14 March 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, Wifione ^Message 07:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - I've looked harder at the article and found the following. Since nomination on March 1, a number of blogs have been added to the External links and Notes sections. In addition to those blogs, reference has been added to a single English-language publication, Atlas Poetica, whose articles relate largely to a single non-notable (see above) gogyoshi poet, Taro Aizu. Further additions include a link to the personal website of Mariko Sumikura, and to three of her books self-published at Chikurinkan. Additionally, an editor of Atlas Poetica has added a second paragraph to the article, which is at core unreferenced (though he includes one peripheral reference to his own magazine). In summary, these last attempts to make the topic look notable are merely smoke and mirrors. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment　-　The number of search of "五行詩（Gogyohshi)" at Yahoo! Japan on March 16,2012 is,"　2,510,000”.　The number of search of "Gogyohshi" is "6,530".　That of "Gogyohshi" at Google is "209". "Gogyohshi" has the great notability in Japan but doesn't have enough notability in English -speaking countries yet. As a conclusion, we can expect the developement of "Gogyohshi" in the future English-speaking countries.--Rappelle-toi (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yahoo! Japan search for "五行詩" shows me just 136,000 not 2.5 million as claimed above: http://search.yahoo.co.jp/search?p=%22%E4%BA%94%E8%A1%8C%E8%A9%A9%22 --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Bagworm, as you added a quotation mark " " to Japanese word 五行詩, the number of the search has greatly reduced. If you delete the mark " " from 　五行詩 and search it by Yahoo!Japan, you will see that the number of the search will be more than you pointed out. The number changes every day. At least it shows 700,000～2,500,000.　Please click the following URL! This. http://search.yahoo.co.jp/search?p=%E4%BA%94%E8%A1%8C%E8%A9%A9&search.x=1&fr=top_ga1_sa&tid=top_ga1_sa&ei=UTF-8&aq=&oq= Moreover, the search number of 五行歌 in Yahoo!Japan is http://search.yahoo.co.jp/search?p=%E4%BA%94%E8%A1%8C%E6%AD%8C&aq=-1&oq=&ei=UTF-8&fr=top_ga1_sa&x=wrt Besides, the search number of 会津太郎（Aizu　Taro）is http://search.yahoo.co.jp/search?p=%E4%BC%9A%E6%B4%A5%E5%A4%AA%E9%83%8E&aq=-1&oq=&ei=UTF-8&fr=top_ga1_sa&x=wrt The notability of them are very evident in Yahoo!Japan. As a conclusion, we can hope we will have their developements in English speaking countries.--Rappelle-toi (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment First of all, notability in WP terms is not established by number of results from a web search - please see Wikipedia:Notability. Secondly, you appear to have misunderstood how Yahoo search works. Per http://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page=content&y=PROD_SRCH&locale=en_US&id=SLN2242&impressions=false
  "To search for an exact phrase, put quotation marks around two or more words. For example, a search for 'to be or not to be' returns only results containing the exact phrase inside the quotation marks."
  Therefore, (by comparison) this search for "five line poem" (with " ") finds 664, all being occurrences of the exact phrase. By comparison, this search (omitting " ") yields an impressive 854,000 results, but the vast majority do not contain the exact phrase "five line poem". --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"五行詩”（gogyohshi)　isn't "five line poem" in English but "五行詩” in Japanese.--Rappelle-toi (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. It's simply an illustration of how omitting "quotation marks" distorts the result. To obtain an accurate count, you must include the " ". --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese people don't use a quotation mark generally, so the number of search using a quotation is reduced greatly but the number of search not using quotation is not reduced, but the real number in Japan. --Rappelle-toi (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Japan,　the search number of 五行詩 is about 2,500,000 as follows: https://www.google.co.jp/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=f&oq=%E4%BA%94%E8%A1%8C%E8%A9%A9&hl=ja&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GWYH_jaJP308JP320&q=%E4%BA%94%E8%A1%8C%E8%A9%A9&gs_upl=0l0l0l4329lllllllllll0&aqi=g1s2 the search number of 五行歌 is about 800,000: https://www.google.co.jp/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=ja&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_jaJP337JP337&q=%E4%BA%94%E8%A1%8C%E6%AD%8C In addition, the search number of 会津太郎 is about 1,800,000: https://www.google.co.jp/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=ja&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_jaJP337JP337&q=%E4%BC%9A%E6%B4%A5%E5%A4%AA%E9%83%8E Bagworm, do you understand Japanese? Please grab what you can!--Rappelle-toi (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to You Are Not Alone (film). (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bjerg[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A Google News search turns up principally articles about the film he was in. Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the only film in which he starred, You Are Not Alone (film). Cavarrone (talk) 09:25, 2 March 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) 00:42, 8 March 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, Wifione ^Message 07:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to film. Can't see any English or Danish sources. Not included in Danish Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to You Are Not Alone (film). The English and Non-English sources available,[46] are all in regards his one role in the one film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of video game emulators. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project64[edit]

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

Non notable software. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources are primary or are not reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think so. Project64 is a notable software, as ZSNES or Dolphin. The references issue can be fixed and is not a reason to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.132.137.116 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the product to be notable, on the same terms as other leading emulators like Visual Boy Advance or Snes9x; while current sources may not reflect that notability, it is an issue of clean-up, not deletion. Salvidrim! 00:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This seems to me to be one of those "it should be notable, but RS difficult to find" cases. I'm pretty sure that if I took about a week to dig through everything, I could find 2 significant independent RS for this (and ridiculous quantities of insignificant coverage, or of semi-RS coverage). I'm also pretty sure that it would take me that entire week, and that I don't personally have time to do it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried to find any usable references but failed in doing so. Given the opinions above I wanted to suggest selective merge to Nintendo 64, but it seems that all the coverage one can hope regarding WP:V is already there, so the reference to the projects' home page would do. I would specifically disagree that this is one of those "it should be notable, but RS difficult to find" cases, as the software is there for 10 years already, so it has received all the notice it could count for. Once and if any dramatic changes regarding its notability occur, the article could be recreated with verifiable content (in contrast to the current article). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, it just needs work.GuzzyG (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Salvidrim's right, it just needs cleanup, and the page already has a template in use requesting that. Digifiend (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of emulators or somewhere or otherwise preserve. The existing few sources do not seem to have significant coverage to pass WP:GNG as a stand-alone topic. I couldn't find any new ones either. The coverage is essentially a few sentences besides the one review. This isn't enough to build up a full article, even if this passes GNG by a fine margin. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Merge to List of video game emulators. Normally I would agree with those saying that the article just needs to be cleaned up and better references need to be found, but I'm afraid that Dmitrij D. Czarkoff is correct, and there just aren't any additional reliable sources. If the issues that people are saying just need to be worked on to help establish notability can't actually be fixed, then there's really no valid argument to keep it. Rorshacma (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of emulators per Hellknowz. The sources really do matter, per WP:GNG and WP:RS, but if enough feel that this could be sourced somehow, then a merger would be in order. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Merge to List of video game emulators. If a reasonable target is available, there's no reason for outright deletion of a verifiable topic. Perfectly sensible search term. BusterD (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are referring to "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article" redirect usage, but that requires the target to actually contain some info about it. That article doesn't, so unless we merge, there is no need for a redirect. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The target article List of video game emulators I suggested does contain a listing of the software and a link to the pagespace we're discussing here. However, the marginal sources available in this pagespace would benefit the target, so a merge might be preferable. BusterD (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whoops, sorry, I had case sensitive search on from previous work so it didn't match it. I see it is there indeed. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of video game emulators (second vote, please disregard my previous delete vote): very appropriate target which contains some information on topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of video game emulators - Vote changed after review. Salvidrim! 17:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Half Moon Island. Consensus appears to have established that the subject doesn't warrant a seperate article, as it lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Discounting the second keep comment, as the user has been blocked for socking, the first keep comment could have been stronger if sources had been present. However, because information is relevant to Half Moon Island, there appears to be a consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Half Moon Island Trail[edit]

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

No WP:N notability for this trail. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. First source just a map. The next two don't mention the trail and don't varify the claims made. The last is unreleated to the trail and is tourist quide that is not a reliable source and doesn't varify the claim made. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—this trail has been covered by the BBC, The Guardian and it is the subject of the first Google Street View coverage for Antarctica. That satisfies WP:N for me. Imzadi 1979 → 07:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the coverage of this trail by the BBC and The Guardian. It is not the subject of the first Google Street View coverage for Antarctica. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This trail is not notable. The above comment is incorrect: the BBC and Guardian links don't mention a "trail" at all. Google for title in quotes gave me 19 results (including WP page), none significant. This is not a common name for anything, and the Google Street View activity is covered in Half Moon Island. Could merge content with Half Moon Island. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Did the nominator check for additional sources, or base this nomination only upon sources within the article? Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, not just those in articles. Also, the article was just created yesterday, on 14 March 2012. Why a sudden nomination to delete without allowing time for article improvements and expansion? Perhaps consider allowing time for articles to be improved, rather than immediately nominating them for deletion right after they're created. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I checked for other sources but i found a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Half Moon Island itself appears to be pretty notable. A Google search brings up several results for a trail on that island. And Colapeninsula makes a good argument for the trail's notability. OldGeorgie (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show us any good result google bought up? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may be different for other users, but when I go to Google Maps to look at these (very cool) pictures, the map describes the path as "Half Moon Island Route 1". Although the path is mentioned in a number of sources, the phrase "Half Moon Island Trail" itself turns up almost nothing at Google. In addition, note that there is an ongoing MfD for another brand-new page about the path, which had been saved in WP space as a "humor" page: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Penguin Path 306. My inclination would be to merge any usable content here to Half Moon Island. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Half Moon Island. The details of the trail can be covered there. Dough 48 72 23:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Half Moon Island, which would consolidate the information in one place. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Half Moon Island per arguments above. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ranch to Market Road 187[edit]

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

No WP:N notability for this road. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. First two sources are not independent. Next two are just maps. The last two don't mention the road and don't varify the claims made. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is the nominator challenging the accuracy of the historical and length information published by TxDOT? Sources such as that have been accepted at WP:FAC for articles like U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, M-6 (Michigan highway), etc. (I can list 40 more articles, all of which use official DOT sources.) Is the nominator saying that maps are not reliable in general? Is Google Maps not independent? As for the footnote on the movie, if the nominator would simple cross reference the locations mentioned to Google Maps, he would see that they are all on the subject roadway. In general, per past precedents, state highways are generally kept here at AfD. Imzadi 1979 → 08:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Imzadi 1979 → stated, DOT pages have always been accepted references. Otherwise, all, if not most, of the articles on Farm to Market Roads would have to be deleted. Just in case, though, I added a few book sources.
Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 08:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was just recently listed as a Wikipedia Good article. Why was this article nominated for removal from the encyclopedia? The nominator should seriously consider being less hasty in nominating people's work and good articles for deletion. Also, the nomination appears to base notability upon sources only in the article, rather than upon the availability of reliable sources. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, not just those that are within articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all roads are notable, so long as they can be verified to actually exist. EnvoyClass (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Farm to Market Roads in Texas are notable enough for articles per WP:USRD/NT and DOT sources are allowed in articles. Dough 48 72 19:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A numbered state highway, article is part of Wikipedia's comprehensive and encyclopedic coverage of Texas's extensive highway system, no good reason is given to delete this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recognized by TxDOT as a the longest RM in the system, which should confer some notability. Also, the article is rated as a GA; any notability and reference problems should have been found during the GA review. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Farm to Market and Ranch to Market roads in Texas are considered notable since TxDOT bothered to designate them and maps cover their routes, both of which guarantee suitable references will exist. This road is no exception, especially since it has several references which go beyond DOT/map coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:OUTCOMES, numbered highways maintained by a state DOT are considered notable. As this article passed GA review, the claim of inadequate sourcing is not justified. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. henrik•talk 18:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Reggie Hamilton Standard Jazz Bass[edit]

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

No indication of notability for this particular instrument. It reads like an advertisement and its only sources are Fender.com or FenderCustomShop.com. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a Noted Users section, updated the links and references, and found actual photographs of players using this bass. Is this what you needed to save this page from deletion? --Aaronfaletto (talk) 19:55, 6 March 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) 00:46, 8 March 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, Wifione ^Message 07:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the linked articles are to sources at Fender, so they're not independent and don't meet WP:RS. Photos aren't valid for establishing notability either: we need text saying what is in the photo. The article needs references to independent sources (e.g. music magazines or books). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fender makes guitars. Lots and lots of guitars of different models. It is verifiably a Fender product, but beyond that I can find no coverage about this particular model independent reliable sources to establish notability. I can only find instances of websites that sell this model of guitar. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchball 3000[edit]

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

Does not pass the general notability threshold. Non-notable online free flash game. No significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This game is on various websites. Wikipedia contains articles about such things as tiny towns in Switzerland which no one has ever heard of, it can include something like this. As a specific example, when I hit the "Random Article" button, I got this: Emerson Orlando de Melo. Finally, it is mentioned in another article: Monkey Island (series. Ergo, it provides more information about the topic of the game, and allows people who see this and are interested to find out more about the game and maybe play it. In order to avoid any false accusations, I will state now that I am not employed by Armor Games, Free Web Arcade, etc. and won't benefit in any way from this being put up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert the Devil (talk • contribs) 21:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we're trying to measure is not the importance of a topic (in part because we don't even want to start debating the meaning of the word "importance"). We're trying to establish "notability" in the following sense has the topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Even the tiniest town in Switzerland has hundreds of years of thoroughly documented existence and therefore easily passes the test. Pichpich (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the changes, but you might be right. Robert 23:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert the Devil (talk • contribs)

I looked at the changes, and the only references now are the four sites the game is on. And like I said, I really like the game, but no one has ever written a newspaper/magazine article or book about it. One of the criteria, as Pichpich said, is that the sources have to be independent of the topic, meaning that sites that host the game don't count. - Jorgath (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've played this game. It's really fun. It's well-designed. It's not notable in the slightest. - Jorgath (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. No references, just the site of the game itself. North8000 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The game was given an extensive review at Jay Is Games, a piece was written by Kieron Gillen here (both now cited in the article). There is also a squib of reception detail here on E4 (not yet cited). That's all the sources I can find after a good long search. I think it just about has enough coverage to satisfy WP:N, though not a clear keep from me because of how limited it is. Someone another 16:34, 2 March 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) 00:44, 8 March 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, Wifione ^Message 07:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PREDICT Open Source Intelligence Team[edit]

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

It's just a research group within an Agricultural Experiment Station, so I don't see how it's possibly notable, but I was requested to let the community decide. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 2 March 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) 00:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there appears to be sufficient sourcing to support article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are like seven people in an office and we search Google all day. There is no reason that our office merits a Wikpdeia article. This is utterly irrelevant to anything else, which is why it is an orphan article. It would be comparable to having an article dedicated to the work a group of graduate students are doing for a professor. The article was created by a *former* employee who broke his nondisclosure agreement, and had a self-importance problem. Ryandward (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If nobody in your college knows who you are, how did this article get written? And how did the FDA give you an honor award? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I have been working there since inception and I have never heard of any award that we have won, other than being awarded the contract. A former employee, Mrnelson, broke a confidentiality agreement, and wrote this basically as a way to make himself seem important to put on his resume. That article got written, because the news department at NMSU looks at who in the University is receiving grants. You can't honestly think that this page is worthwhile, can you? What information is gained to anybody by having this here?
- Here is an list of people who won awards at NMSU, so you can get a feel of how they report the news around here, and just throw the word *award* around. Do you think everything here also merits a Wikipedia article?
  - Professor of range science at NMSU receives prestigious award for local, international efforts
  - NMSU professor receives award for work done in counseling psychology
  - NMSU administrative assistant to receive first ‘A’ Mountain Service Award
  - Here are 7700+ more articles about awards.

- Cited article is incorrect. There are many "Honor Award" awarded. Thus, "Their work has earned NMSU the FDA’s 2010 Honor Award." is dubious. Another PREDICT developer claims to have won it that year. Natural Selection, Inc. Personnel Commended With 2010 FDA Honor Award for Effort on PREDICT. In all likelihood, it seems that Natural Selection won the award, and someone at NMSU was confused. Please see this Google search..

- PREDICT at FDA has very little to do with NMSU, it is a nationwide program. NMSU, however, has a grant to work on PREDICT. Ryandward (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another employee who works in this office, page is unneeded to sustain any links.128.123.240.113 (talk) 19:05, 12 March 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, Wifione ^Message 07:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skip the Foreplay[edit]

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

Band who shows no notability. Lacks multiple releases on an important label. Touring lacks coverage. Does not inherit notability from bands they've shared the stage with. Sources are primary or are not reliable sources. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing satisfying WP:MUSIC. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Much of the coverage found was the news item about the band signing to Epitaph (e.g. [47], [48]) but there is more out there: [49], [50], [51]. --Michig (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BAND # 1. Articles in Exclaim!, The Georgia Straight, and Voir are from three different provinces, are independent of the subject, and are sufficient for a keep. There's a bio of the band at AMP Magazine. Like user Michig, I didn't do a complete search and there's more out there. I did add them to the external links section. Argolin (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Santhiago[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT. and the GNG; no nonpromotional GNews hits, only pertinent GBooks hit is an astonishingly subliterate self-published collection of porn video summaries. No significant reliable sourcing. The claimed "Erotika Video Award" fails the well-known/significant standard and has no substantial coverage, while neither the title for which the subject supposedly won the award, nor her reported costar, appears to exist outside of Wikipedia or its mirrors. Article created by immediately-vanishing SPA. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 March 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) 00:36, 8 March 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, Wifione ^Message 07:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete solid, reliable sourcing is important in every article, but absolutely vital in BLPs, and extremely essential in porn-related articles. I'm not at all convinced that acceptable sources exist for this person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability established. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baragowah[edit]

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

provides insufficient context to understand subject of the article
Unable to determine notability of this article's subject
Unreferenced new article

Would the article's creator be able to give us more information to go on? If so, perhaps there would be something to work with. Senator2029 (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - tidied up a bit. Place exists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer. Also, the article was just created on 13 March 2012‎; why so hasty to delete? The article was created by a new user. See also: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a village and populated settlements are worthy of note in an encyclopaedia. Also see WP:FIVE #1 "gazetteer" as Northamerica1000 mentioned above.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:FIVE #1 "gazetteer" and speedy close per Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. It was a good contribution (for which I see the newbie has received some recognition on his talk). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: just paid attention to the nomination summary... you should note that AFD is not clean up and get a look at WP:UGLY. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New Zealand Film Archive. Sandstein 07:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Zeland Film Archive 2009 Recovery[edit]

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

Lack of context and sources RichardMills65 (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well... lack of context and sources aren't exactly reasons to delete an article. The film recovery is notable, but I'm not sure that it is notable outside of the New Zealand Film Archive. I am finding sources about the recovery, but I can't help but wonder if it's something that would be better if it was fleshed out on the archive's page. The only thing I do know is that the article we're discussing now misspelled "Zealand".Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge to New Zealand Film Archive. Definitely worthwhile material, but it fits neatly within the main article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm leaning towards "merge" as well. There's a ton of articles out there about the film discovery, but most of it centers around the time of said uncovering of film and it could be considered WP:ONEEVENT. I do recommend that if it is merged, the article history is left intact so we can revamp it later if/when other articles or books are written about the recovery in the future. I'm fleshing out the article just in case this happens in the future (or to see if there's enough to warrant an article keep).Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/redirect and merge. I tried to find enough sources to show that the discovery warrants an article of its own, but in the end I have to suggest that this be a redirect to the Film Archive site. I am thinking that a redirect to the site would be best, but I'm not entirely happy with the title of the article. Is it possible to rename it something along the lines of "2009 Silent Film Archive discovery" or something to that nature? I would like to try to keep the article history if possible (if not, I can userfy a copy of the data), as this is something that could potentially be mentioned in future books or articles down the line.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main New Zealand article. This is a very important discovery, but I'm not sure if it warrants its own article. Happy for it to be kept if there's some expansion work done, though. Lugnuts (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting the "keep" opinions that do not address the applicable inclusion guidelines. Sandstein 17:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Distilus[edit]

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

Being one of thousands of unique pages on the web does not make it notable. In fact, there are other sites out there doing similar things (viz http://www.tastings.com/spirits/index.html). I am not seeing coverage beyond a bit of local press/blogs/vanity stuff - not really extensive. Wikipedia is not a listing of every resource out there. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep as it is notable, albeit slightly, but it is unique in it's operation which would make it more notable in purpose. Perhaps it could be expanded on? BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with Bash PROMpT in that expanding the article would definitely add value to wikipedia. In terms of "tastings.com" this looks more like an static directory of "wine" "beers" and "spirits" whereas Distilus leans more towards an interactive community, search engine and digital archive for preservation of distilled beverages solely. I have also expanded on the article mentioning the sites integration with wine-searcher. Hoice (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a start, but it seems then that it is simply piggybacking on another search engine, which makes the claims to uniqueness even less tenable in regards to searches at least. And you just have to look at Wine-searcher's article to see why it is notable - a list of over half a dozen major publications (including Forbes and the LA Times) which have given the site coverage. That is what is meant by "Significant coverage" in WP:NOTABLE, something which this site does not have. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure the appropriate word to use would be piggybacking considering the API code has been deeply integrated with the site and acts as its "engine". The uniqueness is how Distilus has creatively integrated the WS engine with its own database and media. In teams of sources, you are correct in saying that they are less notable however does this constitute a less meaningful source? The sources are there, from a credible Canadian business magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoice (talk • contribs) 12:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it is as unique as you claim, Uniqueness and Notability are not the same thing. The sources provided leave me unimpressed to say the least. Only one source (http://www.arbitragemagazine.com/general/profiling-rising-start-up-distilus/) has any depth to its coverage, and all independent sources (excluding the link to the company site, and the questionably relevant citations linking to wine-searcher) profile it under their "start-up" sections, which doesn't inspire much confidence in my opinion. If it's really notable, wait a few years, and better sources will come naturally. For now, I say toss it. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 20:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It surely could use an expansion, however as the above post has stated, the sheer uniqueness of the operation does merit its notoriety. Wennis 33 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were true it hasn't been shown to be unique. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like its the process on which Distilus runs is what is notable. Being an archive for the worlds rarest spirits and preserving their history is important and the global community should be able to know that such a collection is in one accessible place. I strongly vote to keep it.123.211.224.52 (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question of notability is something of debate yes. Here is the position as of now at the table, does the site offer something of historical, intellectual and overall goodness to wikipedia? I am leaning towards yes. Is it so much so that it overrides its notability? Perhaps no, but it does have notable sources, as i also enjoy a nice glass of scotch even more so to discover one. Rmrende (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fascinating how people are discovering Wikipedia and weighing in here as a first and sometimes only contribution. :-) I am not saying it's a case of WP:CANVASS but this site does seen to have some ardent supporters! Harry the Dog WOOF 19:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its because it was promoted on the fb fan page to participate in the discussion Hoice (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC) :)[reply]

Comment I'm afraid that falls under WP:CANVASS and is not allowed. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that it was intentional. I believe all the supporters of Distilus also support the importance of fair dealings with Wikipedia. But yes they are enthusiastic thats for sure. Any potential canvassing must of been a misunderstanding and I hope it does not detract from any credibility.131.245.208.230 (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but "Its because it was promoted on the fb fan page to participate in the discussion" tells me it was intentional. Especially as we have also had some sockpuppeting. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont think posting something that says "Join the discussion on the Distilus wiki article" is considered illegal, especially when its stimulating the debate. Hoice (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:CANVASS. Encouraging people to join a debate like this one knowing that they will take your side in the discussion is certainly against the letter and the spirit of the policy. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are getting too technical. What was meant was that, I do not think going against the spirit of Wikipedia was intentional not the actual invitation to engage in discussion. Further more I am starting to get the impression that you almost have a vendetta against this page for some reason and now have a biased negative opinion of whether this site is truly notable or not. No other user is as adamant about deleting the page but you. Maybe it's time you withdraw yourself from the discussion as you might be exhibiting characteristics of WP: Tendentious Editing. I only say this for the spirit of Wikipedia and nothing personal.131.245.208.230 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's funny coming from someone whose only edits are in defence of this article. If I am adamant in this case, it's because I don't like to see people with conflict of interest abusing Wikipedia by creating vanity pages, and then resorting to sockpuppetry and canvassing in order to save it. Those are facts, and no amount of arguing can change them, and if it continues I will report those involved. I think that is a clear and valid reason for wanting the page deleted, quite apart from the subject's lack of notability. It has nothing to do with tendentious editing which is about making biased, POV changes to articles. Right now, as I see it, of the non-canvassed opinions expressed, apart from the article's creator, we have a weak keep and two deletes. Harry the Dog WOOF 04:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tendentious Editing includes: Accusing others of malice eg. Sockpuppetry. When and where has there been more then one user name used by the same user? There has not been any malice going on here. The only mistake was suggesting to users to engage in discussion which may be classified as canvassing but it was done with out intent to disrupt any spirit of good faith. I am willing to make this my last comment and I hope you do the same. Give the page a chance to grow and for users to add more notable sources for Distilus. You made your points, leave it to the rest to make a decision.131.245.208.230 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not an accusation of malice when there are facts to back the accusation up. In fact, I have bent over backwards to assume good faith in this entire debate, even in the face of flagrant evidence to the contrary. I have already discussed this with Hoice. Look on his talk page. When the article was up for speedy deletion, he made two separate comments on the talk page, one logged in, one as an IP. These two edits were meant to look like they came from different people. He was only caught because a further comment was made here using the same IP (64.231.242.112), but a subseqent edit to the same comment a minute or so later was signed by Hoice. I only make accusations of sockpuppetry when there is evidence. To his credit Hoice has not denied the facts, which is why I decided not to report him. Members of the Wikipedia community who abide by the rules will determine the fate of this article. As I said, that does not include people with conflict of interest who resort to sockpuppetry and canvassing. Again, these are facts, and no amount of arguing or rationalising will change them. If the page is deleted, and notability can subsequently be established, it will be recreated, hopefully by someone without a COI. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:44, 14 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relister comment Given the obvious keep canvassing here, I have relisted to draw clear consensus. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 15. Snotbot t • c » 04:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is lacking substantial independent references; the only one is to Arbitrage Magazine, a student publication. The article makes it sound like just another liquor database and provides nothing to explain what's unique/special/notable about the web site (having social network aspects or discussion forums is not special). There's been a lot of debate over this article, but nobody's bothered to improve it significantly, which makes me suspect that it's not going to get any better. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, brand-new accounts and IPs suddenly showing up to "vote" for an AFD is usually a strong indication of a SPAM/COI problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've looked at the page, and think it lacks enough reliable sources. While I'm not going to accuse anyone of canvassing, virtually all of the keep voters claimed it should be kept on uniqueness. Uniqueness alone cannot justify an article. Uniqueness can, yes, help attract in people and therefore attract reliable sources; but in this case it appears it hasn't. Uniqueness is subjective, and if we kept things based on that we'd never get anything done (personally, I find this search engine for wines to be completely plain). – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a clear lack of reliable third party sources. The references already on the page are about all there is, and as stated, they aren't enough to establish notability. If more occurs in the future that helps establish notability, the article can be recreated then, but at this point, "uniqueness" is not a valid enough argument to keep it.Rorshacma (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Long-standing community consensus is that verifiable inhabited places merit inclusion. The article has now been made more readable. Sandstein 17:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Werken[edit]

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

Unsourced article with no formatting, content or discernable theme. Highly unreadable. RichardMills65 (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Populated places are always notable, and this was merely a matter of removing whatever was crapped on the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. Inherently notable, scope for improvement. --Colapeninsula (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atlin mountain[edit]

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

A non notable mountain with no sources to justify why it's notable. Also written in a POV style. Tinton5 (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't find the appropriate notability guideline, but it's unlikely that a named mountain doesn't satisfy it. Plenty of reliable sources attest to its existence.[52] [53] [54](press Show more) [55] Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A well-sourced article at this time, and Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer.

"Atlin Mountain (Map)" (PDF). British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines and Responsible for Housing. Retrieved March 15, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Item 2011.3.1.28 - Atlin mountain, Atlin, BC". University of Northern British Columbia Archives. Retrieved March 15, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Atlin Hiking". The Province of British Columbia: Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. Retrieved March 15, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Patrick, Tom (April 7, 2010). "Snowmobilers have a drag in Atlin". Yukon News. Retrieved March 15, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Atlin Taku Land Use Plan Proposed Protected Areas: Frequently Asked Questions" (PDF). British Columbia Ministry of Natural Resource Operations. Retrieved March 15, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); no-break space character in |title= at position 51 (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia:Notability (geography): "Named geographic features are usually considered notable. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands etc." --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nearly all named geographic features are considered notable enough, and have been since I can remember. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I have decided to withdraw this nomination, due to the efforts of those who added verifiable sources, thus establishing notability. Thanks. Tinton5 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not a snowball's chance in Malfeas. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Penshurst road accident[edit]

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

Not so notable road accident. I mean, we have WP:Not news as a guideline. Tinton5 (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable fatal car crash. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, merge is done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax, Nova Scotia[edit]

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

Totally confusing dab page. Isn't disambiguating properly, seems to be incomplete, has both a mergeto and a mergefrom tag. Just blast it to smithereens. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a mess, but there is hashing about it on the talk page going on, so they're well aware of the issues. Even though "AFD is not cleanup" usually, maybe this nom will finally get some attention on it. Nate • (chatter) 05:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Hashing about" that just went around in circles and came to a stop in January, you mean. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Halifax (disambiguation), like I have said before, it is an unnecessary page. 117Avenue (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Halifax#Canada, to avoid confusion and duplication. Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything unique to Halifax (disambiguation), and redirect or delete. Overly specific and fails to be a true disambig page simply because it isn't ambiguous, but is instead, quite specific. Would have been better outside AFD, but sometimes this is the only way to get things done, with a hammer (no pun intended). Dennis Brown (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bad DAB page! Bad! Down, boy, down! I agree with Hammer. Sometimes we do have sub-DAB pages when the main one gets too long or confusing, but in this case I can't see the point; indeed, this sub-page seems to be less complete and more confusing than the main one. Not sure there's anything to merge back, but if so, do so, otherwise just redirect Halifax, Nova Scotia to Halifax. There may be a separate question of whether Halifax ought to lead (i) to the existing DAB page or (ii) directly to the most likely target, Halifax Regional Municipality (with a disambiguation hatnote at the top of that article pointing to Halifax (disambiguation)); but that decision is presumably better left to processes other than AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. It is clear from many discussions (Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia#Confusing, Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia#Shambles, Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia#Can somebody tell me where the article on the place called Halifax in Nova Scotia is?, Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia#Round Two) that users (if not editors) often look for a WP article on Halifax, Nova Scotia. So where is the material they are looking for? It seems to be mostly in City of Halifax. So why not send them there? Put a hatnote on that page to send them to Halifax Regional Municipality in case they are looking for info about the wider area and not just the settlement. But why send them to another dab page and leave them to figure out where to go? That is just unhelpful. And it would be even more unhelpful to delete the page. The discussion here supported the view that this is not a case of "incomplete disambiguation" which should be replaced by a redirect to another dab page.

The page is a mess. To enable users to find what they are looking for most easily, my suggestions (in order of preference):

1. Merge with City of Halifax, i.e. rename that article Halifax, Nova Scotia, with an appropriate dab hatnote

2. Merge with Halifax Regional Municipality, i.e. rename that article Halifax, Nova Scotia, with an appropriate dab hatnote.

3. Keep this page, but rewrite to be more helpful to users. --Mhockey (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't care either way. Way to not establish a consensus. Are we just gonna spin our wheels forever on it? Sure looks like that to me. We've been trying to fix this for FIVE YEARS and clearly no one gives a shit, because all we ever do is talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk but NOTHING GETS DONE. DO SOMETHING ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and I don't see any emerging either. A proposed merger or move should be discussed at WP:PM. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in rock and roll[edit]

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

There's several issues with this list, which violates WP:NOT#INFO. This list that has no defined criteria and extremely unmaintainable. Every rock and roll artist will die eventually. It has no age limit, artists that been dying of old age is listed. There's no exact criteria in which an artist qualifies as rock and roll here (I see quite a number of artists listed that their music isn't consider rock). Who can be defined as "iconic" for this list is original research and so fourth. An article of rock artists who died unexpectedly, and became iconic is fine, (don't we have an article on that already, I can't find it) as it's an extremely notable subject. But this list isn't the answer. Delete Secret ^account 02:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the above issues could be overcome, and there's no requirements for a WP list to be comprehensive or to have precise legalistic criteria. The cataloguing of Rock Deaths is a long-standing practice: see Greil Marcus's classic essay "Rock Death in the 1970s: A Sweepstake" and the Houston Press's regular coverage of the topic under the rubric of the Greil Marcus Rock Death Meter[56]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. I've commented before on this question on the article talk page. As the proposer here suggests, the list is increasingly bloated by the inclusion of unexceptional age-related deaths of minor (and certainly not "iconic") figures, and clearer criteria need to be set for inclusion, based in my view primarily on age - deaths of rock (or rock-related) musicians aged under 50, for example. But, the list should be improved along those lines, rather than deleted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because any limits placed on it would be completely arbitrary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is highly notable; for example, here's an entire book dedicated to it. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of real-world coverage and notability. Criteria needs to be tightened and the list cleaned up, but that's a matter for the talkpage, not AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And tell me how any criteria would not be totally arbitrary and random. No matter what limit you set, it's totally arbitrary. Why 50 and not 40? Why 40 and not 30? Etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss that on the talkpage of the article. Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of unnatural deaths of rock and rollers and prune all run-of-the-mill medical causes. This would alleviate 10-pound (4.5 kg) Hammer's objection. Is Alan Freed's death due to uremia and liver cirrhosis all that notable? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't fix it. What constitutes unusual? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of these people, it appears to be: transportation accidents, drug overdose, suicide, murder and the odd freak electrocution. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename TenPoundHammer, Clarityfiend's suggestion says 'unnatural', not 'unusual'. 'Unnatural' is a non-subjective term, and fixes the problem quite nicely.143.92.1.33 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When scare tactics get old, they get boring. Perfectly normal editorial decisions are neither POV nor are they OR. Similarly, when lists, just as any other article, get too big, they get split. There are no answerable arguments to delete. Anarchangel (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogoothies[edit]

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

Speedy was declined, and while English language sources may be an issue, I can find no evidence this company is notable or meets WP:CORP/WP:ORG. Disclosure, I just deleted the vast majority of the article but it was a) a copyvio and b) not in English so I don't think that has an impact on the AFD. Just mentioning before it comes up. StarM 01:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. This is apparently a Brazilian chain of frozen yogurt stands. The sort of business that might have a shot at cultural significance, but Google News finds nothing that doesn't look like an announcement of a routine transaction. Come back after you get that celebrity endorsement from Yog-Sothoth. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 7 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy. No significant indication of notability, seems to be largely an advertisement. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 10:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Mountain Goats discography. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taboo VI: The Homecoming[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS - there is no evidence from reliable sources that these albums have notability independent of their creators. . ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, all cassette albums by the same band with the same issues, for deletion for the reasons stated above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taboo VI: The Homecoming: Here are some links from seemingly reliable sources that mention or comment on this single and put it in context. [57] [58] [59] [60] [61], that should show notability per WP:GNG. (Could somebody else include the best ones in the article?). Diego (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify - In case it was not clear, my Keep vote extends only to Taboo VI: The Homecoming, which is the nominal article for the AfD. I'm not sure how these "bundle" nominations are expected to be decided with a single discussion; the evidence I found is relevant mainly to this article and I have no opinion formed on the others. Diego (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had enough time to do some real research so there isn't much weight behind this as a !vote, but should these be found unacceptable notable they should probably be merged to The Mountain Goats discography rather than deleted.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly would agree with that as well, absolutely no content is going to be deleted here. But I can see the argument that some of these cassette-only releases may not be independently notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Mountain Goats discography. Adequate sources cover the material sufficiently to prove verifiability, but in the case of these cassette releases, coverage in the discography is appropriate. BusterD (talk) 13:57, 14 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, all these cassette articles should be merged to List of cassette releases by Mountain Goats, since the topic of cassette releases is notable (it has been covered by the sources I provided above). But I think the current structure of small articles linked by the Mountain Goats navbox is a better structure for the information (so IAR to improve Wikipedia). Diego (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient sourcing, the quote can be turned into prose. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added another reference; I am unsure how one would merge this information into a list; with a professional rating, fully referenced, and going beyond saying that it exists, I would be perplexed if this were merged. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following Diego, I too would like to clarify that this is only for his first cassette; I think these AfD's need to be split. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either the discography article or a new article on the cassettes as suggested. The sourcing found is rather slim, mostly bordering on mentions of these specific subjects while discussing the band in general.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Mountain Goats discography. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Mountain Goats discography, the album on it's own has not been the subject of significant coverage outside of the sources that report it's existence. Mt king ^(edits) 03:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the band's article has been the consensus whenever an album is not itself, or group of albums are not themselves, notable. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of them into the discography. Verifiable content but apparently non-notable topics (I looked through the sources provided for each of them and tried searching for more but none of them seem to have enough rise above the WP:GNG threshold), so with an obvious merge target available that seems like the best option. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No userfy because the author, Devanshtrivedi (talk · contribs), is indef-blocked for copyvio. Sandstein 17:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shrisudharshannathji[edit]

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

I can't source this looking at a variety of spellings. It isn't mentioned in our article on Bhopal where it is supposed to be. I raised this on the related Wikiproject and got no response. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references found. It may be a non-notable temple. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Devanshtrivedi/Shrisudharshannathji. It could well be notable in local refs. -- Trevj (talk) 12:38, 14 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There doesn't seem to be clear consensus on how this is written: "Shri Sudarshan Nath ji" or "Shri Sudarshan Nathji" are common and the article also uses "Shri Sudharshannath ji". --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy - there's absolutely no information any where on this topic. There's a lot of specific information in the article, but no clue where it comes from or whether it's even relevant. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphire Tower[edit]

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

A Toronto construction project proposed but never built. Project has been cancelled and the development corporation is bankrupt. PK T(alk) 20:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are quite a few reliable sources there, but it's all old stuff from before the project was cancelled several years ago. Given that there's unlikely to be more on this, I'd lean delete, since the cancellation means that it's failing the test of notability over time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are recent sources in addition to the many older ones: Unbuilt Toronto 2[62], published in October 2011, has a chapter about Sapphire Tower and the also-unbuilt Wittington Place; this book (and the Sapphire Tower) is discussed in a November 10, 2011 Toronto Star article[63]. This mammoth project may have remained unbuilt but, it seems, it has some lasting impact, and the content is worth keeping.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "lasting impact" of a construction project that never got started is dubious. PK T(alk) 22:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it has a lasting lack of impact? :) --Lambiam 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 22:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I bumped into this discussion while looking unsuccessfully for another deletion discussion of a mall in Saskatoon. I don't understand this frenzy of deletions that is keeping so many Wikipedians away from positively contributing to building up this wonderful source of information. Why are the rules on deletions so subjective? Why is it OK to list every single Marriott hotel on this earth at Wikipedia, yet delete any article that has anything to do with commerce in Canada? Why is it OK to make articles about villages anywhere, whether populated or not and whether they have any references or not, but not if they happen to have been the subject of a development proposal? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, this AfD isn't a good place to address your concern. Wikipedia:Notability guidelines have been published for quite some time, but I'm sure there is someplace in Wikipedia where discussions about the guidelines are in ongoing discussions. Secondly, I haven't seen a particular rash of deletions lately, but I see from your talk page that you have, so be that as it may. As to the reason behind my recommendation to delete this particular article, it's because the Sapphire Tower never got built, and didn't cause any huge controversy, so how could it possibly meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines? Maybe it does meet the guidelines somehow (at least one other editor thinks so), so the AfD process exists to allow the Wikipedia community to express opinions on the matter. I can live with the result - can you? PK T(alk) 15:12, 6 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not temporary, although no prejudice against working this into the article of whatever eventually takes that place (since that is the topic people will search to find the history of that site). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The idea that we should delete articles about failed projects, when there were sufficient WP:RS to support them prior to their cancellation is Orwellian. If our nominator still thinks this article should be deleted I'd like to point out that they don't seem to have offered a policy based reason for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that's not true, although I'll grant my policy-based point isn't in the nomination itself. "As to the reason behind my recommendation to delete this particular article, it's because the Sapphire Tower never got built, and didn't cause any huge controversy, so how could it possibly meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines?" PK T(alk) 17:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non-existent subject has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The Steve 23:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What did you find? There's only one source referenced in this article (and one of the references refers to the lot being sold, not the non-existent building that this article's about). I do not see "significant coverage" on this subject. PK T(alk) 14:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a book, Bloomberg, Toronto Star, National Post, some others The Steve 05:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, somebody improved the article. Take a bow, Steve. PK T(alk) 11:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help :) The Steve 08:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salafist jihadism[edit]

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

The term salafi jihadism nowhere appears in encyclopedias. It should be deleted. It's just an apologetic term to wahhabi extremism or salafi extremism. This is invented by west for their hidden agenda to get support from saudi arabia's wahhabi rulers. Zikrullah (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salafi/salafist jihadism has become a common term to describe a certain ideological trend in both the English and Arabic media for years now. It is used in numerous books I have read and there are also groups in countries like Morocco and Jordan that use this term to describe themselves. The article does need further work to explain that this term refers to a specifc ideology that looks to specific scholars (Abu Mohammed al Maqdisi, Abu Qatada al-Filastini, Abu Basir al-Tartusi), specific websites (Minbar Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad) and emphasises specific doctrines (Tawhid, Al-Wala wal-Bara, Jihad, Aqidah and Takfir) Pmolloy291 (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: not properly transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That it's a propaganda term based on US-Saudi relations is a conspiracy theory, mainly promoted by rival Muslim sectarian groups. It's an accepted term in the media and academia. There's no reason to delete the article at all; it just needs some attentive work. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 14 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems a well-used term, i.e. notable. Slight concern that the phrase does not have a long history, but the movement it describes is genuine and has existed for longer. Proposer's concern seems to be about article title as much as notability, but it seems a good NPOV title to me. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red (A.S. RED)[edit]

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

Unsourced affair that can be merged with After School (band). A.S. RED, sub unit of South Korean girl group After School Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although there's no sources, the article asserts that it charted. Seems like that would make it likely to pass music notability standards, and probably receive coverage as well, right? Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Per WP:NSONG, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:26, 3 March 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, 4 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 1680 classic[edit]

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

Short, non-notable phone that is unlikely to expand. JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article definitely needs more sources once the sources are located and added, I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. We can't delete stubs simply because it's 'unlikely' to expand. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 03:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRODUCT: [64], [65], [66]. -- Trevj (talk) 12:48, 14 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews in all the usual places. Above links and here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Net value score[edit]

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

It's subtle, but this is WP:SPAM. I can't find any cites for this product other than from the company's own website, from employees of the company (e.g. Julia Cupman), or from paid PR from the company. Can't find any academic evaluation or criticism. Zad68 (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All cited sources are to company sites, company employees, or PR. Google search doesn't reveal anything beyond sources that fall into one of those three categories. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 7 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notable performance metrics for companies would show up in business books. I can find no such coverage.-- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yes the only editor who bolded anything said "delete" but he was also suggesting that a merge was possible. If that happens then the article and its history must be retained as a redirect. See WP:MAD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Narita Wholesale Market[edit]

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

An article about a marketplace in Narita, Japan that neither has any references, or shows any indication of notability. The only external links provided are to the city's website, which does not really count as a reliable third party source, and while searches bring up a few hits that show that this place exists, I can find none that would count as a reliable third party source that would help to establish notability. I originally tagged it for Speedy Deletion under criteria A7, but the speedy was removed with the explanation of "probably notable", however since I can find no evidence that this is true, I brought it here for consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --DAJF (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was the one who added “probably notable”. Could someone with access to Japanese-language sources take a look? I would expect that something like this would have useful references somewhere. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider merging it into the Narita, Chiba article. I'm in the U.S., saw lots of references to other similar markets in Japan, saw nothing about Narita's in my searching except for the Narita market's website and its web traffic. Im sure to those in the area of Narita, it is as popular as Walmart is here, but I think this equates to my local Walmart having its own article. Simply because my Walmart is the most popular store in my town does not qualify it for its own article. Nothing on their website says anything about "biggest" or "most visited" or "most famous." The city website sort of tells the tale, or should I say...doesn't tell anything about the market that I could find. It's not listed on any of the half-dozen or so organized tours (though other businesses are), it's not mentioned in its "Guide to Daily Life" download although many, many other businesses are, none of them being a business within the Narita market. Nothing in the site map points to any category it would be included in. Ken Tholke (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:20, 5 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music_Candy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Music Candy

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

This article is about a company whose only possibly notability is one theme of one tv show in the UK. This does not meet any of the music notability requirements, particularly WP:COMPOSER. I did a search on the company and could not find any information at all on them outside their own website. Let me know if I am missing something. Gofigure41 21:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Music notability guidelines don't strictly apply to a company specialising in library music, theme music, advertisement music, etc. Nonetheless, lack of independent coverage means not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 6 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of country performers by era[edit]

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

Unsourced. Redundant to List of country music performers. Full of OR and redlinks and spam. Doesn't navigate in any way that existing lists and categories do not. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dividing this very long list up by era makes sense, and is useful, the prime requisite for a list. Lists are, after all, navigational devices. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It still seems redundant. Why not simply divide the main List of country music performers into sections in that article? The criteria for "era" in this one seem acceptable, so they can be used in the other article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extremely inaccurate deletion rationale (eg, only one section of this lengthy lists has a significant number of redlinks, easily addressed by routine editing if called for). No significant OR violations, and lists of articles don't require replication of sourcing found in the articles themselves. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I notice you didn't address the fact that it is redundant to List of country music performers. Would you mind offering an opinion on that? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Because chronologically organized lists aren't interchangeable with alphabetical lists; I would have thought that self-evident. Note that, per WP:LIST, structured lists are typically more valuable than unstructured lists, so that, if redundancy were an important concern, the less valuable, alphabetical list would be the better deletion target. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. I haven't !voted yet, since I wanted to hear arguments from both sides, but your arguments appear correct. Keep. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:17, 8 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The alphabetical list is comprehensive but hard to make sense of. Classified and hierarchical lists are always more useful. That said, while the alphabetical list is more comprehensive we should keep both. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have to be wary of over-listification, but I don't see anything wrong with this one. Provides an accessable entry point to research that the alphabetical list doesn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Berg[edit]

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

This appears to be the product of either an imaginary or an imaginative 14 year old child, see Becca (person). Absolutely no real world cites, link is broken, Google turns up nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Zad68 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing out there to show that this seemingly fictional town is notable. I couldn't find any links to show that this place (or its singer) are notable or even really exist. There's zero coverage of them out there, not even a fan page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. This is apparently the fantasy land of the author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love this page, but it still doesn't belong here as an obviously made-up thing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've found nothing that indicates this article is anything more than a WP:HOAX. -- WikHead (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Howes[edit]

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

We have a real, live politician here. The concern that I see, though, is that he is only a Selectman - which, from what I can tell, is the northeast US equivalent of a city council member. Noting WP:POLITICIAN, this, alone, does not make him notable, nor does the fact that he's running for a third term. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Gregory Howes is only a Selectman, the equivalent of a New England City Councilmember, as the article states, he is not seeking a 3rd term, but rather running for the General Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. -User:Ejd10

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:POLITICIAN --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dennis, a selectman here is a councilor of a town, not a city; it's not remotely close to notable. Howes would meet WP:POLITICIAN if he won the seat, but he hasn't even won the party primary for the seat. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, also fails WP:GNG for lack of non-primary sources. Ravenswing 03:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, OK - thanks for that. =D --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It is clear more discussion of this article is needed, and it may be advisable to consider merging it, but those issues can be discussed on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Valley (landform)[edit]

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

The content is unintelligible and there are no sources available online with which to improve the article. Dianna (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no real WP:VERIFYable sources, and two of the main sections are just a rehash of existing articles: Las Vegas Valley and Great Basin Divide. If better sources are found to back up the WP:NOTABILITY of the landform, then the author could recreate the article. Of the two sources, one is not WP:RELIABLE and the other has a WP:PAYWALL. —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 03:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an article from an editor who had problems with creating readable non technical articles. Also the allegation that there are no online sources to improve the article is blatantly false. A quick search provides many sources and additional material. Clearly this land form exists and adding this material to the populated place know as Las Vegas (which includes more then the city) and is currently named Las Vegas Valley is already a broad article with many issues. Adding this material to that article would create more problems there and add nothing to improving the material here and likely make it more difficult. Given that most valley articles are likely stubs, I find it interesting that this one is nominated here. This one has information and more sources. I do agree that the section on the Great Basin Divide could be removed or just mentioned in passing. But I'm reluctant to do so since I'm not sure how to decipher the technical material in that section. Finally, AfD is not article cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vegaswikian. I do think we need an article on this topic, but the current one is unintelligible, and I was unable to find any online sources. If you could provide links to some, I would be happy to clean up the article. Alternatively, if you can extract any meaning from passages such as "The valley in the northwest section, is a northwest-by-southeast trending area, and trending parallel to Las Vegas Wash, lays at the northeast of the Spring Mountains massif" and "The northwest section, thus describes the entire landform as a central, and large valley with an attached feeder valley northwest, and in this case the northwest source, and actual course of the Las Vegas Wash", perhaps you could enlighten me? I can't figure out what the meaning is. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup and added references. Those should help you a bit. As I said, the article creator had issues is writing non technical articles that most readers could understand. As to the sections you asked about, I think the "northwest-by-southeast trending area" refers to the direction that the basin runs in. The "Spring Mountains massif" is a geologic description of some feature of that range, which is the western edge of the valley. The references to the Wash are confusing to me since the wash is not straight and changes directions over it's course, but the Wash is the basins only outlet. But as I said, AfD is not article cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian, the issue you describe of the information being too technical to understand is exactly the problem outlined in WP:TECHNICAL. It doesn't even seem clear to me reading Las Vegas Valley and Las Vegas Valley (landform) what differentiates the two. It seems to me like the latter is just giving the physical geography of the former. Plus, in the article being discussed, it apparently refers to both the valley and the valley (landform) by the same name, further creating confusion. For example: "Las Vegas Valley is actually a basin drained by the Las Vegas Wash." versus "The Las Vegas Valley is an area about 1,600 square miles (4,100 km2)." Anyways, I'm not familiar with the area and the key sources are inaccessible, so I can't vouch for the validity of any of the information either way. —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 02:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just an afterthought, perhaps the article should be kept, but the contributer(s) would do well to take heed of some of the advice mentioned in WP:MTAA#Rules of Thumb. Speaking as a person who has some undergraduate geography education, I still find the lead section almost unintelligible due to its reliance on highly technical terms and concepts. See also MOS:JARGON. Maybe keep the article, put a {{Technical}} tag on it and start a discussion for improvement in its talk page. —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 03:00, 8 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, and the article now has several sources to support that. Issues with readability aren't valid reasons for deletion, as the article isn't so unintelligible that we have to throw the whole thing out and start over. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what's useful to Las Vegas Valley, which is apparently the same area; we don't need content forks. If nothing useful can be merged, delete. Sandstein 17:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Williams[edit]

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

The subject fails both the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for entertainers. She was involved in one notable event: becoming runner up in the second series of the BBC1 show Strictly Dance Fever. This is adequately covered in the Strictly Dance Fever article. Google books and Google news archive searches yield nothing relevant. There are non-independent sources. Dancerspro.com has a page about her that includes a list of events she has taken part in, frequently as a troupe member or assistant choreographer. Their notability appears dubious. Swingxtreme also has a page about her, but it is not independent as she works for this company. Stfg (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Because Williams also teaches, WP:BLP1E probably doesn't apply (although I note that this wasn't actually cited in the nomination). Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. -- Trevj (talk) 12:54, 14 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectsoft[edit]

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

WP:PUFFERY piece that, while appearing well sourced, is actually sourced to press releases and WP:SPS. No independent coverage can be found in any WP:RSes. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The #Services, #Technology Focus, #Efficiency and #Awards sections seem particularly evident of a failure of WP:NPOV and/or WP:SELFPROMOTE. —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 03:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—As the nominator said, the sources accompanying the statements are not reliable enough as they are self-published. The awards section needs to be improved in particular. Minima © (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete What exactly violates the rules of WP:NPOV and/or WP:SELFPROMOTE in the #Services, #Technology Focus, #Efficiency and #Awards sections?
There are no words, "puff" sentences promoting the company in these sections. Only facts are presented there. As for the sources, there are no links to the company website in the sources, there are articles published not by the company, but by the websites upon their own will and initiative. The #Awards section does not contain promotion: Intellectsoft have won these awards and there is no harm in giving information about it. The references in this section are independent ratings, where Intellectsoft took part and was awarded. Minskdreamer (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — Minskdreamer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment it's very evident from the over exuberant arguing and single purpose editing that Minskdreamer has a conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned WP:SELFPROMOTE because it reads like an WP:ADVERT in that the first paragraph discusses things like the company's ISO certifications which seem to boost the image of the company, but don't really help give it context. Also, the fact that it even contains an Awards section seems like a violation of WP:NPOV considering I've looked at other technology company articles such as Microsoft and Facebook, both of which only mention in passing that the firms have won awards, and give a couple of examples. As mentioned in WP:IRS, there is a difference between truth and reliability. A lot of the references seem to be website designed by the industry to promote itself, and not actual reliable sources.
  Perhaps this company does deserve some mention in wikipedia, but this article is too biased as it is right now. —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 14:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Minskdreamer, please read WP:SPS. A self-published source does not mean "a source published by the subject of the Wikipedia article". SPS means something that is published by the same person or organization who writes it. For example, I could start a new series of awards for outstanding Wikipedia articles, make some plaques, create a very professional looking website, and start issuing awards. These awards are not notable, and the website is the perfect example of a WP:SPS—the organization giving the award operate the website. A notable case would be if third-party sources write their own coverage of the awards. For example, the Academy Awards get coverage in hundreds of American (and international) press outlets. This makes them notable. If you can find third-party sources that mention this company, its awards or anything else about the company, then it will be notable. If you are trying to figure out if something is third-party, ask yourself if the publisher of the article is, in any way, related to anybody involved in the article. If they are fully independent, then they are third-party. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JmaJeremy Why do you think ISO certifications boost the company’s image? In what way? They are mentioned to notify the reliability of the company and to show its status. Besides, it’s a just a fact, like the fact that company is headquartered in UK, London. It is not written in the article that Intellectsoft is the first or the only company with a certificate like this, it is not written that such certificate gives any advantages to the company. The Awards section is deleted, though I’d like to pay your attention to the fact that there are other articles on Wikipedia about companies featuring such section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaM_Solutions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBA_Group Minskdreamer (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is a great mistake to compare Intellectsoft with companies like Microsoft and Facebook, as it is clear from the given article that Intellectsoft despite of its achievements is not that prominent. Maybe it would be more reasonable to compare it with companies of the same level like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itransition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBA_Group, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwood_Technologies Why are these articles are not considered to be an advertisement or self-promotion? Minskdreamer (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
“A lot of the references seem to be website designed by the industry to promote itself, and not actual reliable sources.” Which references exactly? I don’t understand this. What websites are not reliable? All websites mentioned in references have no relations to Intellectsoft (i.e. exist independently and publish articles about anything they find interesting or important to write about), I checked this fact carefully. Please, provide the evidence proving I’m wrong. Minskdreamer (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read WP:SPS and I understand what a self-published source means. I do not understand what does it have to do with the given article? What sources are self-published? Before writing the article I checked the info and references – all the mentioned websites do not relate to the company. Minskdreamer (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minskdreamer (talk • contribs) 10:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:B2B rationale. This article violates WP:NCORP so much, that it can be deleted right away per WP:SNOW. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NCORP sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. Aren't these sources http://www.bestwebdesignagencies.com/rankings-of-best-iphone-development-companies and http://www.iphonefootprint.com/2011/03/the-best-top-10-iphone-app-developers/ good enough to support a claim of notability? These are independent ratings and they are mentioning Intellectsoft and its achievments. Minskdreamer (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, those websites are small, unknown and unregulated websites that are specifically made by people in the industry to promote the industry. A reliable source is a source that is independent, such as a widely-known newspaper, academic journal, broadcaster or government. Ipo.gov.uk could be a reliable source, but that particular page you linked to appears to be just an entry in a database, not an actual article, so it doesn't count. Generally speaking, in whatever source you use to establish notability, your company has to be discussed over at least one full paragraph, not just mentioned in passing. —JmaJeremy ^TALK _CONTRIBS 18:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you don’t know these websites does not necessarily mean that they are unknown and unregulated. If you looked them through carefully you might have found out that Best Web Design Agencies is the independent authority on web design agencies and it is dedicated to finding the best agencies when being compared to all in order to give customers the best possible service available. iPhoneFootPrint also caters for the users’ needs, providing information on everything related to iPhone, as well as it makes independent ratings of best iPhone developers for iPhone users to choose the best developers and products. As for Ipo.gov.uk, it is the official government body responsible for granting Intellectual Property (IP) rights in the United Kingdom. Therefore they do not publish any articles about organizations, they only give patents. This source is used to notify the reliability of the company. There are sources in the article discussing the company over one full paragraph http://www.iphonerg.com/intellectsoft-recieves-top-iphone-developer-honors/ (I presume you won’t find it reliable and known enough), but what about this one http://www.cecileparkconferences.com/Mobile_Apps_Legal?page=3? Minskdreamer (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what about these articles Itransition, IBA Group, Redwood Technologies? Why they are not considered for deletion when my article is? Are some different criteria applied to them? And why are these SaM Solutions, IBA Group allowed to have the award section? You see, as a newcomer here and I seek examples in the existing articles. Minskdreamer (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately we can't nominate for deletion every non-notable topic at once. Though if you want to speed up the process, feel free to do it yourself. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These articles have been on Wikipedia for quite a long time, therefore such attitude to my article seems a bit suspicious. No one has noticed Wikipedia rules’ violation in the abovementioned articles for months (though it seems to me the period is longer), but my article was nominated for deletion on the day it appeared. Seems strange, doesn’t it? I sincerely want to contribute to Wikipedia and I highly doubt that deletion is the best way to do this. All I want is a fair, non-subjective and equal approach to all articles on Wikipedia. The only reason I mentioned those articles is that before publishing mine I looked through already existing articles and took them as an example, did everything in the same way and for some reason I receive nomination for deletion. I have edited my article, by the way, but again I see no reaction to this. Minskdreamer (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem strange at all: new articles are patrolled, and this is how the nominator came across your article. Unfortunately sometimes patrolling editors don't pay enough attention, so the articles of the same quality as yours may exist for years. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've edited this article. May it now remain on Wikipeadia or should I make more changes? What could be done to improve it? Minskdreamer (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage in reliable sources showing the noticeable impact of this company on the history of software industry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that those other non-notable companies are still on Wikipedia reflects the fact that we didn't used to be quite as strict, but in more recent times there are so many small technology businesses that the requirements for notability are harsher than for other companies. The fact is that most technology companies are run-of-the-mill. Many editors find that this essay is a good guideline on what type of technology companies are kept. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion to gain more publicity for your company--it is a place to document prominent companies that many people already know about. Sources such as the websites noted above are not considered reliable. A reliable source is an established newspaper like The New York Times or The Economist, an established magazine like Wired or a peer-reviewed journal article. When a company is discussed in one of these types of publications, we can be assured that there is something noteworthy about that company. As for relatively unknown blogs, for all we know they could be getting paid to write about the company, or they could even be partly owned by the company. Think of it this way. When I read the article, I think to myself "well,it's just another app developer, so what?" If one your apps became very famous (i.e. Angry Birds) or if you introduced some revolutionary new way of creating apps, then it might be notable, but as it stands, it's just another run-of-the-mill app developer. —JmaJeremy ^TALK _CONTRIBS 21:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another mobile phone software developer promoting itself on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it doesn't necessarily seem unduly promotional, it doesn't appear notable either. WP:B2B is interesting reading, and while technically just an essay it does give a good overview of how this material and Wikipedia intersect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some substantial editing to reduce promotionalism. The personal essay WP:B2B is, fortunately not a guideline; the material presented there would lead me to the exactly opposite conclusion, that a company making a significant product is likely to be notable, or, in my personal opinion, is actually notable. That a product is widely adopted within its sphere even for a time is notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure B2B may not be a guideline, but ultimately, wikipedia is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY and we make decisions based on consensus. It seems to me like the general consensus is reflected by B2B, and many editors here are casting their !vote on some related basis. Ultimately, Intellectsoft is only an online software company, and doesn't have any software that could be considered notable. It's not an attack on the company itself, I'm sure it's a great company and they deserved every one of those awards, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic. —JmaJeremy ^TALK _CONTRIBS 03:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria upon which an article may be called encyclopedic are rather vague and subjective. You see, to my mind, this article is of a great use for Wikipedia visitors, as Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and Intellectsoft is an international company providing development services worldwide. And these days the technologies, internet and mobile phones are an integral and indispensible part of our lives whether we want it or not. Minskdreamer (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:B2B is a rationale, which is entirely based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines and it does a good job of explaining the application of WP:NCORP and WP:NSOFT in the area of its scope. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:26, 15 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JmaJeremy you do seem way to harsh like you actually do not like the particular company or have something against the industry on the whole. As for run-of-the-mill it is an Essay and not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. It is quite subjective just as you are about companies that are worth mentioning on Wikipedia. Moreover run-of-the-mill is increasing subjectivity in notability discussions – WP:N is very clear that notability is not about importance, and it does not mention anything about uniqueness. Wikipedia is not some Guiness Book of Records it is an encyclopedia. If in the book of records publications are supposed to be exceptional and sensational, the encyclopedia may actually cover the so-called run-of-the-mill. Besides, as one user correctly said: “Wikipedia is not paper and so the practical constraints upon the inclusion of topics is boundless. Google and other services show us that it possible to have coverage of every street, every book, every web page, etc.” (you can read more interesting points on the matter here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Run-of-the-mill). I do not mean that since there is enough space for anything, any kind of info (even useless one) should be posted on Wikipedia. But you shouldn’t be too strict to articles. Intellectsoft is surely pale in comparison to Facebook or Microsoft and it did not develop Angry Birds, but this company is worth mentioning too; and Wired, The New York Times or The Economist are not the only reliable sources. Yes, Intellectsoft does not have publications in the abovementioned sources, but is it the reason for deletion? Do you know any other ways of improvement besides deletion? Haven’t you heard about editing? Your messages (especially the recent ones) do look like an attack on the company. “Ultimately, Intellectsoft is only an online software company, and doesn't have any software that could be considered notable.” – what do you call it? Does it look like an impartial point of view? Minskdreamer (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff that significant coverage in reliable sources is essential and I will provide it, but I absolutely disagree with the statement of JmaJeremy that Intellectsoft is only an online software company without any achievements and notable products. It is an international Company with offices in the UK, the USA, Germany, Norway; with more than 100 completed projects in various spheres and industries, working with Universal Pictures, Diageo, Panasonic and other prominent companies. I did not add this info to the article only because I do not want to promote the company, I only feel like it deserves to be included in to Wikipedia. Minskdreamer (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references provided aren't sufficient to pass WP:CORP as they are either not independent e.g. a press release or not in depth e.g. [67]. I have searched for more sources, but at this time, they do not seem to exist. SmartSE (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:CORP depth of coverage does matter a lot, but if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple ^[3] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Multiple independent sources used in the article: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-find-number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=2531118, http://www.cecileparkconferences.com/Mobile_Apps_Legal?page=3, http://www.androidpit.com/en/android/market/apps/list/owner/%22Intellectsoft%20Ltd%22, http://www.crocodilekeyboards.com/, http://www.cem.brighton.ac.uk/staff/mw159/ In total, all these sources provide enough information and prove company’s notability.

Why are the given sources reliable? Because according to WP:CORP: Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:

sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,
inclusion in lists of similar organizations,
the season schedule or final score from sporting events,
routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
routine restaurant reviews,
quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

The sources provided in this article do not correspond to any of the abovementioned points (1-12) describing unreliable sources. Thus the given sources are reliable. Minskdreamer (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources: (1) directory entry (lacks depth), (2) about a person, only trivial mention of company, (3) directory entry of products, company only named, (4) trivial mention and (5) doesn't even mention the company at all. Summary: none of these sources support keep vote. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure: after 12 days of this AfD the discussion grew longer but standings didn't change much: 7 editors advocating for deletion (including nominator) and 2 users opposing (including author of the article). This seems to be a sitution of clear consensus towards deletion. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete when edition and improvement is possible? Within these 12 days I've edited the article trying to make it meet the standards of Wikipedia, I took into consideration all the remarks. Why cannot this article stay on Wikipedia under the condition that it will be improved? Afterall, in the course of this discussion it was clarified that this article is not an ad or promotion, the only problem with this article is that it lacks coverage (or the depth of coverage, to be more exact) in reliable sources. This article may be marked as not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guideline in order to give some time for sufficiant coverge search. Minskdreamer (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no amount of improvement could change the fact that the company is just not notable. If this changes and the company gets some indisputable notoriety in the future, then I would encourage you to create a new article at that time. —JmaJeremy ^TALK _CONTRIBS 13:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete Minskdreamer (talk · contribs) has a serious conflict of interest. He uses WP:BLUDGEON which further emphasises vested interest. Notability has not been established to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I am being picked on. According to WP:BLUDGEON Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by sheer volume of comments or repetition of an activity beyond the limits of good faith. I am not writing puff, over-emotional comments to make the volume. I am just trying to express my point of view and I refer to existing Wikipedia rules. Is it prohibited here? Minskdreamer (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the matter of conflict of interest, it is the matter of my time spent on editing and creating this article. Is it mentioned anywhere that I have any relation to the given company? I have written this article as I think that it belongs here, I've spent my time and surely I do not want this article to be deleted - it's not the conflict of interest, it's common sense. Minskdreamer (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you've only edited one article in your time on Wikipedia. Classic sign of conflict of interest. Im guessing you have a connection to the company in question,See WP:SPA. I only hope you stop giving long winded replies and accept consensus that this article won't last. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it's my first article. There will be more to come in the future. It is not single-purpose registration. I always stick to my guns, when I know I'm right and there's nothing wrong about it. Minskdreamer (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sticking to guns doesn't make this notable. Do you have any connection to this company, or perhaps know someone who works there? LibStar (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know the company and find it to be good enough to be listed on Wikipedea. That's it. Please, stop criticising me in person, calling my arguments "winded". My position is clear and reasoned. I do have rights to defend my point of view. Minskdreamer (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. As for the above conflict, 2 things. 1) LibStar, stop biting the newcomer. 2) Minskdreamer, you don't have to respond to everything, and you shouldn't take it personally when your article is criticized; no one is suggesting you did bad work in writing the article, just that you picked a not-deserving-enough topic to "stick to your guns" about. Beware getting into a battleground mentality. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Disney Channel (international). —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel Taiwan[edit]

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

Just like Disney Channel Hong Kong, lacks notability --TBrandley (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Big difference here; Hong Kong is a time zone feed, Taiwan is a completely different network designed for that market and is highlighted as one of Disney's localized feeds in Asia. WP:BEFORE was clearly not done here. Nate • (chatter) 18:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect most of the content is a long list of programs and movies, most of which are also shown in the main channel. Would be better as a couple of sentences in the main article and redirected there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 5 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Disney Channel (international) per Starblind. There's not enough content to justify a full-fledged article on its own and the current lede looks almost the right size to go in the Taiwan section of the international article instead. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Other People[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Other People (2nd nomination)

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

They have a relatively small number of fans on Facebook, an even smaller number of followers on Twitter. While this may not be fully indicative of the importance of this band, combined with the fact that there is little information available about the band through a Google search and that they only loosely if at all meet the notability guidelines, this article should be deleted.

Although it has been claimed previously that the band meets points numbered 1, 4 and 7 in Wikipedia:Notability_(music), these conditions are not actually met.

Regarding point 1 in the notability guidelines: all the articles about this band appear to be fairly trivial. They're usually not the primary focus of the article and the band appears not to have done anything of any particular merit other than opening for some larger acts.

Regarding point 4 in the notability guidelines: there is no evidence that this band has ever toured internationally or even for that matter nationally. There is not even any evidence that this band has release any music to tour in support of.

Regarding point 7 in the notability guidelines: there is no evidence that the band is one of the most prominent representatives of any style of music. They appear to be primarily a cover band. They have never released any recorded material and all evidence online and in this article itself suggest that the band primarily performs covers of various other artists. It seems unlikely that such a band would be prominent representatives of the music scene.

It also appears as though this article was originally created by one of the band members and as such is again in violation of the guidelines.

This band appears to be a small local cover band with no particular significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonerollin (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. This AFD was not properly formated. Consider this the first week of discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Can't find much evidence other than gig listings and similar non-independent sources. I don't know what the trend is for having bands with ungooglable names (e.g. Girls (band)), which doesn't make it easy, but there really doesn't seem to be much content. Tried using Google to search NME, Pitchfork, Drowned In Sound, Rolling Stone; nothing. I'm very reluctant about judging a band based on their Twitter/Facebook fans; I'm sure you could find numerous counter-examples to that rule, and anyway, popularity isn't really the chief reason for being/not being here. But they don't meet the actual notability rules either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:50, 9 March 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, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsigned band apparently working on their first album. Good luck, guys, but not notable at present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect.

The point about redirection and deletion being mutually exclusive is hogwash.
On the other hand there is no requirement to delete the article before redirecting, it is just a bit more tidy to have a simple redirect with no history or talk page if a merger is not supported by consensus, which it is not in this case.

I'll let you non-admins in on a little secret: once you have the buttons, deleting an article is really easy and takes no more time or effort than any other type of edit. It is actually easier to delete the page and the talk page and just recreate a simple redirect than to do the associated clean up and talk page edits needed if a merge was done. So, as the conensus here does favor deleting then redirecting, I'm doing that, but as has been said it doesn't really matter if there is not a merger. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt[edit]

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

Non-notable drink marketed by Steven Seagal. Already mentioned at that article, so no need for a merge. Delete & redirect. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Delete and redirect are contradictory propositions and so the nomination is incoherent. The product is, in fact, notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Celebrity: How Entertainers Took Over the World and Why We Need an Exit Strategy. It seems evident that WP:BEFORE has not been followed. Warden (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Is the product covered extensively in the quoted book or is it simply passing mention? It is used as an example of the subject in the book in one or two sections of the book, then the source is not valid. and I will have to state my opinion as being Delete. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll assume that you are not being deliberately obtuse. No, they are not contradictory. Deletion means deleting an article. Redirect means creating a redirect. There is no problem with creating a redirect after the article is deleted, to catch any possible inbound links. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it doesn't really make sense to do so, since redirecting is an easy procedure that anyone can do, and deleting first, then creating a redirect requires an admin. So yes, it could be done, but probably will not. The Steve 23:53, 17 March 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, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete coverage in gnews is not in-depth and merely confirms existence. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't for the life of me understand why it would be necessary to delete this article. Why is it unacceptable to simply redirect it with the edit history intact? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ahem. AfD is not for cleanup, but wouldn't it be nice if editors added the references they found to the article? Clear keep, BTW. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qanta A. Ahmed[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:PROF, and - as far as I can tell - WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm seeing a fair amount of national and international coverage of her book [68] [69] [70] [71]. And I think her prominent editorial writing in multiple major newspapers e.g. [72] [73] may take this beyond WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the links provided by David Eppstein, I see a positive book review in Boston Globe [74] and editorial writing for CNN [75]... Tradedia (talk) 23:50, 9 March 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, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject appears to have received a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources. The person appears to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Guardian episodes. Anything useful can be merged from history to the extent the structure of the target article allows this. Sandstein 19:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica (The Guardian episode)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, does not cite WP:RS. The show itself does, so I recommend delete and redirect to List of The Guardian episodes - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Nominator does not provide any justification for overcoming WP:ATD and WP:OUTCOMES, which prefer merges or redirects. If there is defamation, copyvio, or promotion that would really merit a deletion, that should be brought out by the nomination... Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If you'll note, I did recommend a redirect in my nomination. I'm not adverse to a merge, but I simply can't figure out what should be merged and what should be deleted. If you (or someone else) can, I'll back a merge. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:48, 10 March 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, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Guardian episodes#Season 3 (2003–2004). Merging might not be appropriate because the list does not include extended details, such as plot summaries, about individual episodes, if the article were to be merged, it would be the only one with such details. Quasi human | Talk 14:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. henrik•talk 21:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the United States House of Representatives who died in 2012[edit]

Closer, please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Senators who died in the 2010s, if possible the same administrator should close both. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is similar to the one on US Senators, which I also nominated for deletion. My concerns about the first article are identical to those I have about this one. dci | TALK 22:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC) dci | TALK 22:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, please provide a link to the other discussion. Perhaps merge both discussions, if the rationale is sufficiently similar.—GoldRingChip 22:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the topic seems sufficiently important - the death of a Congressman/woman is certainly an important event which would be covered by independent reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Link. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Senators who died in the 2010s. dci | TALK 01:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per my statements on the link to the above AfD. RoadView (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as well as the 2005-2011 lists. This seems to be simply trivia and a list just for the sake of having a list. Reywas92^Talk 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as well as the 2005-2011 lists. Adds nothing to the encyclopedia. —GoldRingChip 19:16, 13 March 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, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. Trivial collection of stats with no reason or purpose. See my comments on the other AFD for more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if it's kept (which I opposed above), perhaps it could be merged with List of United States Senators who died in the 2010s as a new list: List of members of the United States Congress who died in the 2010s.—GoldRingChip 18:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comment on related senate page. Dean B (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per RoadViews and my comments in the Senate article AfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Duplicate comment from other AFD) Although a profitable discussion could be had about whether to expand this to List of members of the United States House of Representatives by date of death as mentioned above. By virtue of position, each entry on this list will concern a notable person. The date of death is an essential fact in any biography. Given that this compiles notable facts about notable people, I cannot see how this can properly can be considered indiscriminate. Further, the fact that the information is duplicated elsewhere of no moment, all proper lists are a compilation of information available elsewhere. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as over categorization. While these people are notable the fact that their deaths occurred in the same year is nothing but trivia that doesn't need an article pointing it out as it has not be noted in reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of multinational corporations[edit]

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

I have nominated this article for deletion because it is not useful for several reasons.

There is no guidance of what makes a company notable to be included in the list. Also, there are no sources to explain how the list was originated. Such a list would need to be kept up to date, and it is unlikely that it will be as it is. If the ambition of the article is to list every multinational corporation, it will be far too long and not very interesting, because tiny companies would be listed along side big ones.

For example, a better list would be something like "List of multinational corporations by global revenue as of 2010" (with a list of sources).

An argument why the article should not be deleted is that it could be improved with sources. However, I do not feel like doing this myself. If somebody else does, feel free to, but failing that, it would be better that the article be deleted so that people do not waste their time looking at it. Creating a better article would be no more work because of the non-existence of this one. Count Truthstein (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 8. Snotbot t • c » 23:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After plucking Monster Energy drink off the list, I'm now convinced that there are no rational parameters here. Delete without prejudice to recreation of a sourced list — I have in mind a book or two with lists in appendices that can be mined. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is obviously notable per WP:LISTN. Our editing policy is to preserve and improve such imperfect drafts, not to delete them. No policy-based reason to delete has been suggested - just a variety of arguments to avoid. Warden (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't use policy to nominate this article, but my sense of what was useful and practical for Wikipedia. If there is a policy which says that the article is notable, that doesn't change my view of the article. Surely a policy for deletion is a generalization of discussions about individual articles? The existence or non-existence of a policy (other than the broadest, such as verifiability) is not an argument in itself: we can only judge how the arguments in favour of that policy apply in the specific case. So do you have any arguments against deleting this article apart from citing policy? Count Truthstein (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nom seems to misunderstand the nature of indexing lists such as this. It doesn't matter that the list will never be complete, and the concern over how the list was originated seems to suggest the nom thinks the list as a whole must have been copied from one master source to be valid rather than compiled from multiple sources.
What makes a company notable to be included in the list? The same criteria that make it notable to merit its own article, as in any case of "List of X" where not every X that exists in the real world is notable (e.g., any other list of companies, any list of people, etc.). So long as multinational corporation provides a verifiable definition such that reliable sources establish whether a company is or isn't multinational, I don't see a problem with inclusion criteria. So I do not yet see a valid deletion rationale. postdlf (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this what categories are for, listing articles on notable subjects without any other information? Count Truthstein (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:CLN. They're not mutually exclusive. postdlf (talk) 05:30, 13 March 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, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no problem with this: it's a sensible topic to make a list of, not like some lists a bunch of things arbitrarily yoked together. I know some people don't like lists, but others do, and it's not going to kill you or even mislead you. postdlf has it right. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems like a sensible topic for a list. If the problems with an article can be fixed by editing, it's not a good idea to delete it. Quasi human | Talk 14:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. At least. I'm not calling it a keep consensus because there's a lot of hand-waving on both sides of the argument. Sandstein 06:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italy–North Korea relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. the relations are at bare minimum, mere recognition of existence which can be covered in one line in a foreign relations article. No evidence of substantial relations to warrant a article. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It makes more sense to include this info in each country's respective "Foreign relations of (country)" article than to have a specific one for this particular (non)-relationship. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:06, 9 March 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, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation. These X-Y Relations pages are contentious, please don't half-ass it if you wanna start one. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG easily as numerous books remark upon the fact that Italy was the first western country to establish relations with North Korea. Their diplomatic relations are covered in detail in sources such as this so demonstrating that this is yet another cookie-cutter nomination made contrary to our deletion policy. Warden (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided one source and no evidence of significant coverage and thus fails WP:GNG. 22:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple sources available and the example I provided has a multi-page section about the topic, so passing WP:SIGCOV easily. Warden (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. you have failed to list multiple sources, please list them as you are arguing for keep. LibStar (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warden frequently asserts that there obviously must be sources without providing them. I don't see them here. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with relevant foreign relations of X article. It only describes a single event, the opening of diplomatic relations, and it seems to fail WP:EVENT. If more happens in the way of I-NK relations, then that would merit its own article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Warden is correct: Asia Times, BBC, Associated Press, San Diego Tribune, and more. The Steve 00:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warden, and the fact that a Google Books search finds multiple references. -- 202.124.74.20 (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please list these multiple references. LibStar (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not notable and it can be covered in the foreign relations article just fine. The article has no sources (vague reference to a NYT piece but it's not about these countries relations other than describing them together) and is one sentence. That's telling about the lack of meaningful relations discussion. Again, can easily be covered under the appropriate foreign relations of x article. TheSteve's "sources" only drive home the point... for example here's the BBC one from 1999: "We heard Pyongyang asked the German and Italian governments last month to allow it to send two more diplomats to the North Korean interest section in Germany." If that's your standard then apparently any mere mention is enough. Why is there a desire to have this particular article title when what little content of notability does exist is already nicely at home in Foreign relations of X? None of the 'sources' seem to indicate anything other than triviality. Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the 2000 Asia Times headline: Italy brings North Korea out of isolation - There are good and bad sources, but there are plenty of them.

Keep per Warden - unique can be notable in itself; there are plenty of possible sources. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

which plenty sources are you referring to? As an admin you should lead by example and list them. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of news sources in the Italian media. -- 202.124.73.101 (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. you have failed to list multiple sources LibStar (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All you cite-happy people should be glad to hear I have added 4 impeccable (ok, 3 impeccable and 1 so-so) references to the article in question. The Steve 10:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relations exist Uaer:Lucifero4
Keep per provided sources. Cavarrone (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=8&contentid=20110911201109110230322489c1a6255
^ McDowell, Edwin (February 2, 1989). "New York Times Top-Selling Books of 1988". Books. New York Times. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
^ [76]

[1] ttp://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=8&contentid=20110911201109110230322489c1a6255

[2] McDowell, Edwin (February 2, 1989). "New York Times Top-Selling Books of 1988". Books. New York Times. Retrieved March 16, 2012.

[3] [76]

[1]

[2]

[3]