Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 May	24 May >

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 Speedy delete (non-admin technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safetray[edit]

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

Article fails WP:CORP. Article was created by Carolinewhitham (talk · contribs) who is the Office Manager at Safetray Products with no other edits other than to promote Safetray Products Limited. They even Brag about it on their website. Has many links but they seem to be press releases, buisness relationships, distributors and trivial coverage or mentions. All which seem to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Hu12 (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Placing a purely promotional article into Wikipedia is bad enough, but crowing about it on the advertised entity's corporate web site (Look! We're in Wikipedia! We're really great! Buy from us!) is disingenuous and reprehensible abuse of the encyclopedia project. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 04:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as advertising. We can consider factors other than the text itself when judging whether an article be blatant advertising, and (1) the position of the creator and (2) the company website's use of the page combine with the problems of the article itself to demonstrate that this was created for advertising rather than for encyclopedic documentation. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Calfapietra[edit]

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

Manager of independent league baseball team, while he has some accomplishments in the independent leagues, these accomplishments are not particularly notable. References on the page are all to team websites. Spanneraol (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while there a few sources on Google News, I don't consider them to be significant enough to meet WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 23:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 expansion/sourcing has greatly reduced the potency of the early "Deletes". —SMALL JIM 22:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Inconvenient Truth...Or Convenient Fiction?[edit]

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

Delete: Fails as per WP:MOVIE, has been here over 2 years, is unlikely to have more critical review. Article doesn't even have dates for when the movie was made. Contains almost no content at all. The "movie" is 21 minutes long and is put out by the Pacific Research Institute. It's available through here if you'd like to view it. Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 19:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a notable film; fails WP:MOVIE. Brief mention of the film may be appropriate in climate change denial or similar over-arching articles, but there's clearly not enough for a standalone article here. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: utterly non-notable; failed to attract any media attention. --Lambiam 00:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Before his stating "failed to attract any media attention", did User:Lambiam look? I did... and I found Weekly Standard,[1] Times-News,[2] The Telegraph,[3] Grist,[4] Accuracy in Media,[5] The New York Times,[6] and others.[7][8] speaking about this film... some in great detail... some less so. In addressing the nom's arguments for deletion, we do not expect coverage in perpetuity, we do not judge a topic non-notable simple because an article might be short, we do not a judge film's notability by its length, we do not judge a film notability by its production company, nor do we offer non-rs links to a film in thinking perhaps that by viewing it others will decide it wrong and so vote delete. That is not how we determine notability for a short length independent film. What we do use for judgements is thorough consideration of its coverage, no matter the topic or its truth or lack. Even if the article's been sitting unimproved for a while, the topic appears to be covered in multiple reliable sources which discuss the film and offer commentary and analysis. That would seem to meet the requisite for inclusion. Even if no one expand this topic immediately, that is no policy requiring they do so, and an outright deletion of an improvable topic does not serve our readers. Heck... even a reasonable redirect to Steven F. Hayward#Career where this is already mentioned and sourced is better than deletion. But again, the article is improvable, and we do use AFD to set a clock ticking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... can I ask you to look again at those sources? the New York Times piece is already in the article. The Times-News piece is an abridged reprint of the New York Times piece. The Accuracy in Media piece is a reprint of the Times article, with a few sentences of partisan commentary attached. The Grist piece contains no useful encyclopedic information that I can discern. Let's be clear - at least three of the links you cited are actually to one source - the New York Times article. MastCell ^Talk 06:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I looked before I formulated by recommendation. Apart from the observation that this film is a "point-by-PowerPoint rebuttal" of An Inconvenient Truth, the NYT article (of which the others are mostly derivatives) is not really about the film, but rather a somewhat tongue-in-cheek sketch of a subculture of global-warming skeptics. --Lambiam 10:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah,... one that offers in-depth commentary and analysis within its "tongue-in-cheek". That's just fine. Authored coverage in reliable sources, does not need to be soley about the film, and even with some poking fun at the film, meet WP:SIGCOV as being more-than-trivial in nature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest nom review WP:BEFORE. More than enough sources to establish notability. Article needs to be improved with the numerous sources found by Schmidt, not deleted. Recommend nominator withdraw nomination as a gesture of good faith and spare the community 7 days in AFD-land. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to withdraw the nomination at this time. Further, I don't see how that would be construed as a gesture of good faith, it should be construed as me changing my mind, I haven't, and finally, I strongly believe that even if I did withdraw it, someone else would immediately nominate it, thus drawing this process out even longer. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 06:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MOVIE. A handful of brief newspaper articles do not make notability for a film that was never given a theatrical release. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 06:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many films can be found notable without a wide theatrical release. A theatrical release helps, yes, but is NOT a mandate. You might re-read WP:GNG, as coverage of ANY topic is one of the major means by which we determine notability... specially for a film that was not a theatrical blockbuster created by Dreamworks, Disney or Sony. Among others available, a lengthy (not "brief") write-up with commentary and analysis in The New York Times [9] is quite convincing of how W:SIGCOV is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With significant articles in major newspaper (NY Times, London Telegraph), coverage in the Weekly Standard, and several other briefer refs, e.g. [10][11][12], which prove continuing influence and importance even if they don't provide much encyclopedic information, it seems quite notable. Failing that, merge to An Inconvenient Truth as providing counter-argument. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know about it being so much a counter argument as, per sources, Steven F. Hayward agrees with much of what the Gore film shares. His issue is that he feels the Gore film tends to exagerate the issue of global warning and that it omits certain information that would lead viewers to see that while there IS a problem, the results are not quite as catastophic as An Inconvenient Truth would have us believe. Not being a scientist nor having access to the research, I can only go by the sources report. However, in my having just viewed the (yes, boring) film, essentially what his films shares, and what is supported by sources, is that Hayward says "I Agree with Gore, but it's not quite as bad as Gore would have us think". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability per media coverage - and the NYT is pretty good as an RS. Also Fenver Post mentions it, etc. Covered in books [13], [14], quite sufficient to establish notability AFAICT. Not just a "handful of newspaper articles." Collect (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: article is completely different from the version that was nominated due to a recent fully sourced massive expansion by Schmidt.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is the best platform of article rescue. Huge changes made to the article since this nomination have made this article notable and worthy of being kept on this encyclopedia. And for the record: I firmly believe that climate change is a real thing, but other people are entitled to their own opinions and if they are expressed in a notable way then the person with a differing opinion on this subject is as entitled to an article as the person who's ideology on this subject I support who has also expressed their opinion in a notable way. Things that may happen are not facts until they actually happen. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full articles about the subject in The Weekly Standard, New York Times, and Daily Telegraph satisfies WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Torchiest that major newspapers and magazines have given full articles to this film. WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." An Inconvenient Truth...Or Convenient Fiction? meets that standard. NJ Wine (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources given (including Weekly Standard, NYT, Daily Telegraph) evidence notabilitiy per WP:NFILMS. Them From Space 21:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of people associated with the American Civil War[edit]

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

The scope of this article overlaps with multiple already existing lists. The article also ambiguous and fails to define how a person is "associated" with the Civil War. Wild Wolf (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too general and not useful. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ambiguous and hence almost unlimited. Let focussed lists and categories do the job.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom - we already have several focussed lists in Category:Lists of the American Civil War and the poorly-limited scope could conceivably validate inclusion of everyone living in America at the time plus everyone who has ever written about it, staged a reenaction, been in a film about it, etc. etc. etc. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: this article's scope is much too wide. Pretty much everybody who meets our notability criteria who lived in the US as an adult during the Civil War could potentially be added to this list. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. Agricolae (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. "Associated with" carries no limiting function. I'm not sure who wouldn't be in the list, at least under some interpretations. There just is no utility in such a list. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the reasons stated. 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Many more names can be added which will be too hard to do. It is better to keep that job limited to CATs. →TSU ^tp* 04:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Home Missions School[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. Seems like a run-of-the-mill K-12 school, with no independent references establishing basic facts, let alone notability. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been started by an ex-student. More information will be added as the school has been informed of the article creation. Mpralte 23:30, 23 May 2012 (IST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Grades 10-11-12 makes it a high school, which should be kept according to standard practice for such institutions. Carrite (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a reference for the school [15] and the official website This Higher secondary + high school article should be kept due to Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) The high schools are kept as experience has shown that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Also per wp:BIAS as Google is not a very recommended tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools, they don't dump everything on the Internet and very few have much of an Internet presence at all. Print media is more popular here, local language which cannot be googled is another concern. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. The article now has some references so this AFD can reach its logical conclusion now-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was Prodded 1 minute after creation! Sorry, but I fail to see how WP:BEFORE due diligence was carried out in such a narrow window? Anyway, as stated above, sufficient coverage in reliable sources is likely to exist but requires local searches to establish. The school has been verified and it is better to improve and allow the article to grow organically than to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above all. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – we've very lenient criteria for the notability of high schools, and I don't see any defect here. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus is that all verified secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm disappointed by the quality of comments above, many are using the old "inherited notability" fallacy. The criteria for inclusion for high schools, per WP:ORG and WP:NHS is notability, not existance. Them From Space 19:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of WP:NHS reads "Articles on high schools and secondary schools, with rare exceptions, have been kept when nominated at Articles for Deletion except where they fail verifiability". By verifiability i am assuming "verifiability of existence" and not "verifiability of notability". Isn't that what it means? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also states that articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards. We should not be discussing the school's existence, but rather whether it meets our notability guidelines, specifically WP:N or WP:ORG. Them From Space 20:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you seem to be using the old "letter of the law" fallacy. When custom and common sense clearly go in one direction we don't need a written policy or guideline to tell us what to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Carrite. →TSU ^tp* 04:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's almost always possible to find multiple articles about secondary schools.Marikafragen (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International Trade Centre. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standards map[edit]

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

I can't find any discussion of this market analysis tool, and few independent mentions of it. We do have a pretty bad article about the ITC itself at International Trade Center (which may share the copyvio problems I found in this article). Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem at all notable, and is really a poor "article". Besides, the title is too generic. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As mentioned there is an International Trade Centre article, I'd rather see this put over there. A search google search for 'Standards map International Trade Centre' gives about 50,000,000 results but I can't quite work out how notable it is from them --duncan.lithgow (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International Trade Centre as one of their database products. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stonefield Query[edit]

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

Non-notable software, no reliable sources provided, none found. TN X Man 16:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Doesn't seem notable to me; a search pulled up a few news sources from techy-type websites like i-newswire.com, mostly announcing new releases and such. The article seems way too promotional ("The founders had a vision..."), and we could do without it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of press releases. The only coverage that I could find that wasn't a press release or a product/ version announcement was this item. Insufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything more than a few passing mentions in fully independent and reliable sources. And although not relevant, it seems that the article may have been created by the company's CEO, which explains its promotional nature. —SMALL JIM 22:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that (a) Carrigan does not pass PORNBIO, so debate about whether or not it is a valid guideline is irrelevant, and (b) that the references in the article do not constitute the significant coverage that is required to pass GNG. Also worth noting that we do not dismiss sources because they are dead links, but Delicious carbuncle's claim that the sources are not reliable anyway has not been refuted. Jenks24 (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carrigan[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and all coverage found is trivial. Epbr123 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received coverage in multiple different sources, referenced in the article. Recipient of multiple award nominations. Lengthy career as both actor and director. NOTE: Same exact AFD nominator the past three (3) deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're doing notes, should we note that in the first of those discussions you deleted the article? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the second challenge was voluntarily removed to userspace for more sourcing to avoid another delete result at AfD... So it's really probably not the best keep strategy to point out past challenges and their outcomes... Carrite (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At least this is a halfway competent rendition of an actual biography, unlike 99.93% of the pornbio fan cruft we see at AfD. Not sure whether the sources showing are sufficient to get this over GNG; I'm not inclined to opine here. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article contains little more info than a typical porn bio stub; it's just been fleshed out by putting infobox and award info into sentences, using a lot of repetition, and adding irrelevant trivia such as in the fourth paragraph. Epbr123 (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Real name, birth date, place of birth, pseudonyms, a real history, etc. — the typical crap cruft is more like "Roxxxy Sparxxx is the star of Ejaculation Celebration XXIV, Dallas Does Debby, and Oh, No, It's Ron Jeremy. Again. In 1997 she was nominated for the AVN's prestigious Best Asian Newcomer In a Group Scene of 7 Or More Using a Garden Vegetable Award." Then three paragraphs of random unsourced description of persons, places, and things in which she has orally imbibed or known in a biblical sense. The end. And we're supposed to keep that shit because of the AVN "Award Nomination." Ha. Carrite (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where is his real name sourced? IAFD contains birth dates, places of birth, and pseudonyms for nearly all porn stars. Much of the career history in article is unreliably sourced. Epbr123 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Passes WP:PORNBIO because he has received multiple nominations for a significant industry award. -- role^player 18:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather see GNG addressed rather than a controversial and in practice very nearly deprecated low bar which is a relic of a previous era at WP. Carrite (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator expressed their desire that the page be deleted because it fails the criteria of a particular set of guidelines. I demonstrated how it met those guidelines. -- role^player 18:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can see only one nomination. Epbr123 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you didn't. The nominator talked about trivial biographical coverage in reliable sources, a question that xe has consistently raised for two and a half years and a matter which you in fact haven't addressed at all. If you addressed the question head on — something that in 3 AFD discussions and 1 deletion review has yet to happen, since every time it's come up discussion has been diverted onto some secondary notability criteria — perhaps there won't be a fourth nomination from Epbr123. You know what argument to make. Why not actually make it this time? Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You know what argument to make. Why not actually make it this time? This is the first time I have participated in a discussion on this article. A criteria was cited, I studied that criteria, I made a decision having read that criteria, I posted based on that decision, you bashed me for stating my opinion, so this is the last time I will participate in this discussion. Best of luck with whatever it is you are trying to achieve. -- role^player 20:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to bash you, if you thought I did. I was just trying to steer this towards the angle of whether sources showing meet GNG, which should theoretically settle this matter once and for all. While three porn industry nominations might be sufficient in the eyes of some per the current incarnation of the PORNBIO special guidelines, those are themselves the matter of some debate and are in flux. Jumping that low bar now might not mean a whole lot in one or two years' time. So approaching this via GNG strikes me as the way to play things, long term. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrigan has only a single nomination, so he does not pass WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand how we can be having a serious discussion about this article if the sources used 19 times in the article are dead links. Why are awards for Paul Carrigan sourced to an online video store? This is part of the sourcing problem from years ago that resulted in the sudden disappearance of the now-banned sockpuppeteer Benjiboi and the RFC/U regarding Ash/Fæ. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links can be 404 as long as the source is good. Carrite (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a good source. It was never a good source. It is an online retailer, whose aim is to sell DVDs, not act as an authority on the subject matter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note with bemusement that Cirt was the closing administrator at the first AfD, a debate which ended in delete. Has something changed between then and now that has changed the notability of this subject? Carrite (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After the first AFD I decided to do some research on the subject matter and attempted to improve the quality of the page. NOTE: I'm going to choose to take a step back here at this point and will respectfully defer to the community consensus of this discussion. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Industry promotion of a not independently from the porno industry itself, low notable gay pornography actor - Youreallycan 19:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The problems with the sources highlight the non notability of this type of article. Sources that quikly vanish - are indicative of a fad that has run its course. Also movies that only can only show video rental coverage clearly not notable - as these are again little more than thinly vailed advertising material and not subject to fact checking. BO; talk 06:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage satisfying the GNG and BLP principles. The data base and award listings are, as noted by the nom, insubstantial. Of the two book sources cited, the more significant, an academic essay, actually discusses a character played by the performer rather than the performer himself. The other, the memoirs of a non-notable person, has content that boils down to "I worked with him a few times. I liked him and enjoyed sex with him." There is simply not enough biographical information to create an article from. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Dead links source to an online video store? Nothanks :/ - Alison ^❤ 00:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to lack of reliable sources, it fails to meet WP:GNG. And the refs present are little problematic. →TSU ^tp* 04:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing really stands out as being notable in his coverage (routine and promotional) or awards (all nominations, no major wins). Them From Space 21:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mayflower phoenix[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Also, Wikipedia is not the place for personal essays. (declined prod) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book appears to be completely unnotable, with no non-primary sources even mentioning it. On top of that, the supposed publisher of the book, "Constellation Concepts Ltd", as far as I can tell, never published a single book aside from the books mentioned here, which leads to believe that it is self-published. It kind of makes you wish that there was a speedy deletion criteria that could be applied to books. Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, they don't really crop up enough to warrant their own criterion. PROD (usually...) works just fine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ‣ No evident notability for the book (notability that would have had to be achieved in a matter of months anyways...) plus the article is looking pretty spammy in general, as well as being created by an SPA. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pretty blatant spamming. JIP | Talk 18:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. There's nothing out there to show that this book has any notability and that this article is anything other than spam.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently self-published e-book with no coverage in reliable independent sources, no library holdings, so notability is not demonstrated, plus the article is largely a political opinion piece at the moment. But notability is the deciding issue - it has none. This one is clear-cut to me; I would support a snowball delete and early closing of this AFD. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is self-published by a non-notable author so no reason to keep. Nor it has won any good awards or has got any reviews. →TSU ^tp* 04:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph F. Darowski[edit]

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

The references given for Mr. Darowski still raise concerns about notability. BLP Prod was declined due to presented references, with notes that notability remained to be seen - but with the sources appearing to be primary sources, even in light of the publications, I'm a little more than vaguely concerned about WP:N in this case. I was unable to locate sources myself. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. GS reveals zero citations. 3 hits on Gnews. Fails both WP:PROF and WP:GNG miserably. St Anselm (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No results on Gnews and other results in G were not notable. Thus the person is also not notable at this time. →TSU ^tp* 04:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a copyright infringement of http://www.orkut.com/Main#CommMsgs?cmm=25174744&tid=2510037144758592867. The original article was a verbatim copy, and the latest article was still substantially a copy of that page. This should not deter anyone from writing a new article on the topic, avoiding the same mistake. Note: I am aware that normally an editor who has commented in an AfD discussion should not close it. It seems to me, though, that, when the article has been deleted, leaving the discussion open serves no useful purpose, and just means that others have to spend time on it. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to reopen it. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Bhawuk[edit]

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

Due diligence done. Subject of article does not meet WP:BASIC, or in the alternative WP:ANYBIO. Shirt58 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. All the sources (that aren't broken links) are in Hindi, and some are to sites like blogspot and yahoo groups. My primary concern though is that the article is clearly promotional. "Manoj Bhawuk is shining star on the horizon of Bhojpuri literature and is very popular among young generation for his romantic poetry, his scintillating acting prowess and his untiring strive towards creativity." "This stupendous work of Bhawuk is a treasure and his wok will always be lighthouse for all of us who want to know the history of Bhojpuri film making." Part of the article is written in 1st person, and other parts look like they've been copied and pasted from elsewhere. (The author removed the notability and copypaste tags.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Speedy delete as totally promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have done few cosmetic changes and removed the offending weasel words. the person has recognition as evident in the reference [16] which talks of his achievements. He has worked in Bhojpuri language so google will not be of much use in deciding notability, as the region suffers from wp:BIAS, print media is more popular here. Print media and local language which cannot be googled is another concern. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched. I would be glad if editors here ask for a translation of Hindi and Bhojpuri references -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abrosoft FantaMorph[edit]

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

Fails to meet the inclusion criteria of WP:NSOFT.
Google turns up a whole bunch of advertisements on software marketing sites but I've not found anything close to an independent, reliable source.
Article was recreated one day after being CSD'd for blatant advertising but I'm not sure that criteria applies to this version, hence the AFD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely promotional, definitely trying to get the name out for this software package, but not G11 worthy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, no indication of notability for this software; created by an SPA as likely promotional.Dialectric (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no WP:RS thus fails WP:GNG. On the other hand, google is not helping the article with non-notable results. The article is not notable. →TSU ^tp* 04:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bull Brahmas Motorcycle Club[edit]

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

Contested PROD: tag removed by newly registered account,who claims to be from Kansas & seen gang members. Article entirely unreferenced, and I can find nothing on the internet to establish existence. I suspect an unusually elaborate hoax. TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than a poorly-written hoax. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found and the article itself claims that there are none. Dricherby (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:RS which results in failure of WP:GNG. Nothing notable was done by the subject or any incident or news to support it. →TSU ^tp* 04:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 15:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League and Arena football players[edit]

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

Article is original research, has no citations, and smacks of trivia. Not that this a reason for deletion, but the title is also misleading because it doesn't accurately describe the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails WP:LISTN, which says "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." I havent found an effective search query that yields any such sources.—Bagumba (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's quote that whole notability rule: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

"There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or whether there are other means of forming stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." — Note especially this second part: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists..." That's exactly what this is, a cross categorization NFL PLAYERS who have played in the ARENA FOOTBALL LEAGUE. It's not off the wall, Kurt Warner being the frequently mentioned member of this group. I think it's an encyclopedic topic. To me it's a question of verifiability — where is this information coming from? Carrite (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus might choose to find it WP:INTERESTING, but I will opt to wait for reliable sources that mention this grouping to distinguish this list from trivia.—Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. I'll just start whacking up a few things to demonstrate this is a topic of actual importance to many American football fans. This is a blog post so it's not gonna wow anybody looking for so-called "Reliable Sources": "There’s More Arena Football Players In the NFL than You Think," Get2TheLeague.com/ Carrite (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is better: the Los Angeles Daily News, CHANCES SLIM AND ... NFL JOBS THIN FOR ARENA PLAYERS (HighBeam) dealing with the relationship between the two leagues, including this passage: "Although there have been highly publicized AFL success stories - most notably involving quarterbacks Kurt Warner and Tommy Maddox - the league has sent only 75 players to the NFL in 17 years, an average of 4.4 players a year." — This was written in 2004. Clearly, somebody has a list to generate those numbers, eh? Carrite (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one the link went 404 on me... Asbury Park Press (NJ): "AFL presence: Through last Tuesday, 17 current NFL players also played in Arena Football, including two of the indoor league's most recent stars..." — Again, the connection between former AFL players and later participation in the NFL is the object of counting and important enough to expound upon in the mainstream press... Carrite (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe this to be an encyclopedic topic, a useful cross-categorization of interest to readers and the object of multiple instances of writing in mainstream media. The deficiency of sourcing here is an editing issue. This is a constructable list, limited in scope and completable. Construction of the list is no more original research than construction of the (technically self-sourced) List of Nobel laureates in Literature was, for example. The ban on so-called "original research" is about the prohibition of first publication of crackpot theories on Wikipedia, not about banning people from doing constructive writing on demonstrably encyclopedic topics. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Needs a name change to List of National Football League players previously playing in the Arena Football League. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Wouldn't someone who previously played in the NFL and is now playing Arena football also go on the existing list? —Al E.^(talk) 13:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of players who have competed in both the National Football League and Arena football? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:LISTN. In addition to sources found by Carrite, I have also found sources from The Intelligencer ("Everyone knows the incredible Kurt Warner story, and there have been numerous others of some distinction -- wide receivers David Patten and Oronde Gadsden, kick returner Michael Lewis, quarterback Tommy Maddox, and current Tampa Bay defensive end Greg White -- who found some NFL success after honing their skills in the AFL.") and Knight Ridder ("It's just he's not the only former AFL player making an impact in the NFL. Not when there's Pittsburgh's Tommy Maddox, New Orleans' Michael Lewis, St. Louis' Andy McCollum, New England's David Patten and Atlanta's Jay Feely.") on HighBeam.—Bagumba (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the other comments above, it accomplishes what a category cannot, which is to cross-reference data. Until Wikipedia allows us to "drill-down" and cross-reference for research, this is the next best thing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs a lot of work, including an explanation of the relationship between the leagues, sourcing, and possibly renaming (to make clear that it is about the intersection of the sets and not the union) but this seems to be a noteworthy cross-categorization. cmadler (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cmadler's comments, but who is going to volunteer to clean this up in a coherent manner? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JDS Cageball[edit]

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

Rejected double-PROD. This "article" is why we have the WP:NOTMADEUP content guideline.ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC) (Self-edited to remove non-policy-related criticism of article creators.) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to explain the rules. And there's 0 google hits outside Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you said that, rules have mysteriously appeared on the article! Well... Kinda. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete. Zero notability found. But, please, there's no need to be rude to a bunch of schoolkids just because they posted something that doesn't belong on wikipedia. Dricherby (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken and I've self-edited my nomination. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Based on the lack of sources and the description in the article, that's all this is: a game made up at school one day. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Something Made Up In School One Day. If ever there was a textbook example, this is it. DarkAudit (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - textbook WP:NFT violation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 04:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–South Carolina football rivalry[edit]

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

Non-notable college rivalry. The Bleacher Report is a user-generated blog, not a reliable source, so that is insufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Google News search found the following articles on the rivalry (not just the annual game) from reliable sources: Waycross Journal-Herald (from 1998), Augusta Chronicle (from 2010), The Red and Black (from 2009), The Tuscaloosa News (from 2000), and the Anderson (SC) Independent Mail (from 2007). The sources are there... they just need to be added to the article. I will make an attempt to do so soon. -Jhortman (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable college rivalry. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is only the second time the article has been created, so I think salting would be overkill, but feel free to ping me if it's recreated again. Jenks24 (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You and I (t.A.T.u. song)[edit]

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

Going by WP:NSONG, I don't see evidence of independent notability or that "there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". The parent article Vesyolye Ulybki already contains a single sentence summing up everything in this article.
I propose deletion and salting due repeated reinstatement of article after it was deleted and/or redirected in the past. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the t.A.T.u. songs are in this same position: no third-party sources, no third-party sources that I've ever been able to find, and the only chart they are on is one that is listed on WP:BADCHARTS. I'm not certain that the WP:BADCHARTS listing is justifiable, but I do know that no one has ever found that the chart is used as an industry source, either.—Kww(talk) 12:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONG. No verifiable content in article to warrant merging. -- Trevj (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources and therefore does meet the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Billany[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No independent sources are cited in the article, and my searches have failed to unearth significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The article is essentially promotional (early versions of the article even more so than the current version). A speedy deletion nomination under CSD A7 was correctly declined on the grounds that the article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, but there are no sources at all to support that claim of significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have just looked at the user page of the author of the article, and seen that his/her avowed purpose in editing is "increasing the knowledge of Abridged Series through the use of Wikipedia articles". That looks to me like a statement that the intention is to use Wikpedia for promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My intention was never promotion, my intention was to just make information about the subject readily available. I undertand all the arguments for delete and I understand why this article does not meet the guidelines and therefore accept that the page will need to be deleted in the meantime. However should such a time that reliable sources comment upon the topic, is it to be understood that the page could be recreated? Corexdefender (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment was altered by its author, from "my intention was to just make information about the subject known" to "... readily available", around 15 hours after JamesBWatson wrote that "Writing to increase knowledge of a subject is inconsistent with Wikipedia's ethos. We write to make [information] readily available". ~~Changing a part of a discussion, with no edit summary, after one's stance has been criticized is not good and makes JamesBWatson's comment look absurd.~~ Dricherby (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The reason it was changed was not due to my attempts to undermine anything anyone has said but to make my intention known. The accusations of me of being a promoter an baseless, I have been misinterpreted in many cases and as a result am unable to make my point of view known. I edited the above statement less then 5 minutes after posting it due to the fact that I mistyped. Forgive me for failing to clarify that in the edit summary but, as is obvious, I have not been an editor on Wikipedia for long. Corexdefender (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see from the history that the change was indeed made very soon after the original comment was posted. Please insert new material at the bottom of a thread and not at the top, which is confusing. I mistakenly assumed that your comment, inserted between two comments from 23rd May, was also originally written on 23rd May. Dricherby (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the direct question, yes the article can be recreated in the future, if notability can be established in the future. Dricherby (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it may just be the innocent statement of a new user. If they'd written, say, "increasing the knowledge of particle physics through the use of Wikipedia articles", nobody would bat an eyelid. Dricherby (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing to increase knowledge of a subject is inconsistent with Wikipedia's ethos. We write to make readily available information about subjects which have already received substantial attention, not to try to spread knowledge of subjects which haven't. The particle physics example is not at all analogous, because particle physics has already received considerable coverage and attention. We are dealing here with a very different situation: an editor whose avowed intention is to contribute to making well known a subject which at present is known only in a small niche area of the internet. That is an avowed intention to promote. What is more, examination of the editor's editing history confirms that he/she is here for promotional purposes. The fact that it is possible to make up an imaginary scenario in which similar words might be used with different effect does not alter the facts of the existing situation. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Although I understand how my writing style may have appeared promotional, that was not my intention. My intention was to make the information available. The reasons for the apparent bias was that I, as a fan, am biased towards the series, however this does not reduce my credibility or make me open to accusations of promotion. You will see in the editing history of the page that I and others moved out much of the obvious biases towards the series from the article. Corexdefender (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the non-notable creator of a non-notable... er, thing. I can't even work out what the thing he's created is. The only source I was able to find that might help to establish notability was this article in a student newspaper (University of Edinburgh). I was unable to find anything else, using either a general Google search or Google News with search terms of either "Martin Billany" or "Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged" (without quotes). Dricherby (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a well renowned creator of a largely popular web based parody series. Although research for sources beyond the several authors primary knowledge is in its infancy, the sources backing up notability will be found in due time. A search through many You-Tube award announcements will show Little Kuriboh winning many comedy awards on You-Tube as well as research into the many comic/anime conventions that he visits due to his popularity will show all information supplied in the article is true and accurate towards this well known public figure. Author of Article - Corexdefender (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed important that the article's content be true and accurate but not all true and accurate material belongs on Wikipedia. Please read the general notability guidelines and try to demonstrate that Mr Billany meets those criteria: specifically, that he has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In essence, without such sources, it's impossible to write a good article on him. Terms like "well renowned", "largely popular" and "well known public figure" are largely meaningless unless you can find reliable sources that attest to them. Note also that winning awards is not evidence of notability per se, unless the awards are, themselves, notable. Dricherby (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corexdefender, it is natural that you want to defend the article that you have written, but we can't keep an article on the basis that sources "will be found in due time". We need to see that there actually are reliable independent sources, not that someone speculates that they probably exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.75.152 (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the general notability guidelines due to the absence of secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I'd say that the question of secondary sources can be answered...TO AN EXTENT. As others have pointed out, he has gone to several Comic/Anime Conventions (as a guest, which means that the website for the Event has a brief summary of who he is/what he's done). While brief, these do qualify as secondary sources (and reliable sources) as defined by Wikipedia's standards. For example, the website for Youmacon would feature a brief summary of him, his works, and stuff like that; as defined by Wikipedia's standards though, this would certainly qualify as a secondary source. It is independant, and they are not being paid to do this for him, the information posted is factual (as I doubt Martin himself would allow incorrect information about himself be relayed to the public). The main problem with establishing notability here, by wikipedia standards at least, is that what Martin is well-known for and "famous" for is entirely on the internet, with a few off-shoots into the real world (in the form of t-shirts, hoodies, buttons, and other merchandise people can purchase). GokuSS400 (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bios in event programmes are not reliable sources and are probably not secondary. They're self-published, probably written by the subject (the usual deal is, "Hey, could you send us a brief bio that we can put on the website?") and they're promotional (the event wants people to think it invites significant people; the subject wants the event to invite them again next year). Something being entirely on the internet does not mean the notability guidelines don't apply. The print media talks about the internet all the time and, for example, many bloggers and websites are talked about all the time "in the real world". You seem to be arguing that, essentially, he's notable but there aren't many sources to show it. This is a fallacy: notability is defined as the existence of sources. Dricherby (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A listing in a website promoting an event you are a participant in is certainly not an independent source. It is written by someone you are working for, for promotional purposes. (And whether the work is paid or unpaid is irrelevant.) 79.123.75.152 (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or Merge into Larger articles) I think that one can make the case for there being evidence of Notability, as well as evidence that there are sources enough to merit an article. However, due to his work being entirely done on the internet, its harder to see standards. One can make a similar case for Ray William Johnson. His show Equals Three is entirely about things on the internet, and he is a highly popular figure on youtube, yet it's hard to establish evidence, outisde of the internet, of his notability/popularity. Martin's work is also fairly well-known among the Voice Actors involved in the 4kids Dub of Yu-Gi-Oh! as well as other notable Voice Actors he has met during convention travels (Dan Green, Wayne Grayson, Eric Stuart, and Vic Mignogna)(With him having met Wayne and Vic in person on separate occasions). As for my suggestion to merge it into larger articles, it makes more sense in this case (as Abridging is a somewhat growing comedy medium in terms of anime) to add this as part of an article on Abridged series as a whole (that being an off-shoot from Anime). But as i said at the start, evidence can definitely be established as to Notability, as well as sources being provided (both primary and secondary). GokuSS400 (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GokuSS400, you say that "one can make the case" that there is notability, and for the existence of sources, but you don't actually provide any sources. You say "evidence can definitely be established as to Notability", but you don't actually provide the evidence. We don't keep articles because somebody says that sources can be provided, but doesn't actually provide any. You say "it's hard to establish evidence, outisde of the internet", but it doesn't matter whether the sources are on the internet or not (in fact it is actually easier if sources are on the internet, as that makes it easier for users to verify them). Perhaps you mean that it's hard to establish evidence away from his own web site, internet forums, and suchlike sources. If so, then I'm afraid that means that there are no reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, and without them the article does not satisfy our notability guidelines. This means that you have actually given reasons for deletion, not for keeping. I have no idea whether Ray William Johnson is notable, but in any case that is irrelevant. Ray William Johnson may need deleting too, for all I know. And to answer one more point you raise, someone is not notable because he is well known among people he has met. 79.123.75.152 (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GokuSS400: "I think that one can make the case for there being evidence of Notability". We're not interested in whether somebody could possibly argue that he's maybe notable. Is he notable or not? (And, please note that it's not "notability/popularity": whether he's popular or not is irrelevant.) Please tell us what is this "evidence [that] can definitely be established": give urls of some reliable sources that establish WP:GNG. Saying that his work is "fairly well-known" to four people is a contradiction in terms. Dricherby (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Dricherby, it's not a contradiction in terms. As the people I listed are very famous and well-known Voice Actors. In terms of outside of his fanbase on youtube, those 4 Voice Actors would be the most well-known people who know him. So since people are asking for sources, this is an interview done with him by 91.8 The Fan 2 years ago: Interview there is also a listing for him on IMDb which lists appearances and works he has done (though a few of the entries like Costumes, lighting, misc. crew are joke positions he created himself in a few of his videos): http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3759199/ These 2 links i found within like 5 minutes of just typing his name into Google. GokuSS400 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how famous the four people are: "well-known by four people" is a contradiction in terms because "well-known" means "known by many people" and four is not many. And, in any case, the criterion is not "well-known" but "notable". As for sources, please read WP:RS and WP:GNG: interviews are often promotional and not independent of the subject; being listed on IMDB is not enough to establish notability, because anybody who has had any role in any TV series or movie is listed there. Dricherby (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find coverage in unreliable sources. We need reliable sources to establish notability and I am unable to find any significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cwm Twrch transmitting station[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, not notable. No reliable sources give significant, indepth attention to this transmitting station. E.g. the BBC source is a truly passing mention. No better reliable sources coubd efound through Google, Google News or Google books. Probably the same applies to many of the recent transmitting stations articles, but this AfD is just for this one. Fram (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a relay station, re-transmitting programming without any locally originated programming. Without refs presented to satisfy WP:N, it should be deleted, consistent with common outcomes of AFDs in recent years. Edison (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The proposer didn't do any research before selecting this article for a kicking. Of course it satisfies WP:N, it is a TV transmitter providing service to about 2000 homes. Three or four references are provided to back up the technical facts listed, all of them give "significant indepth attention" to it. (Ukfree, Mb21 etc). The purpose of wikipedia is to provide information on the world about us: current and historical. If you park your caravan in a remote campsite when on holiday, and wonder where to point your TV aerial for a signal, chances are you might turn to wikipedia for info. If TV relays are considered not notable, that's reduced wikipedia's usefulness in reflecting the world around us. And where do you stop? The main transmitters: Carmel for instance, are just "re-transmitting programming without any locally originated programming" (see Edison's comment above). Delete them too? No - there's no reason not to have pages on demonstrable physical real-world things like TV transmitters. Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- On the contrary, the proposer did his research. At the time of the nomination, there were three references: "The TransmissionGallery" is not a reliable source, the bbceng.info site only lists it as one of 9 transmitters starting service during a certain quarter, without providing any additional info besides "West Glamorgan" (so in no way can this be described as indepth attention, this is a truly passing mention), leaving us with one source with a bit more info, purely technical though, and rather unclear on whether it would count as a reliable, independent source anyway. The source added later also isn't an independent source but a press release. All sources are indicative of how local and small-scale this transmitter is. As for the rest of your comments: please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:N, WP:NOT. "It's useful" is not an argument to include or exclude info on Wikipedia, it may be useful to know the prices offered for beer by different pubs in a region, to know where to get the cheapest booze, but we don't and never will include such information. Fram (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  As may have been noted, it was me who notified the article creator, per WP:AFD#After nominating: notifying interested projects and editors. Presumably this was an oversight on the nominator's behalf. To take an example from the same log, the creator of Naša TV was notified. I thought this was standard practice, especially for a recently created article. -- Trevj (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Thanks, Trevj. Without your notification, I'd probably not have even noticed that this was going on. Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Adding articles to relevant WikiProjects can increase awareness of actions affecting them. I've now done so for this article, so it should be listed at WikiProject Wales/Article alerts and WikiProject Telecommunications/Article alerts within the next 24 hours. It's also helpful of Gene93k to have listed this discussion at relevant places. -- Trevj (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute the argument that "The Transmission Gallery" is not a reliable source, it has photos of the sites that it mentions (Cwm Twrch is one of them) plus usually (but not in this case) a brief report by whoever visited and took the photos. Meanwhile, the bbceng.info report does indeed make only a one-line mention of the place, but that's all they ever do: and I only cite their report to back up my claim of when the transmitter entered service (otherwise I could just be making it up, couldn't I?). I am loosely familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:N and WP:NOT though I don't have enough spare time on my hands to go picking through all the fine detail. I just wrote an article with the honest assumption that its subject matter would be useful. It's about a demonstrable, physical, non-temporary object that plays a real part in the real world around us. Just by existing, it has played a minor part in the history of terrestrial TV broadcasting in the UK, in the technical policies of TV service planning and even reflects the perceived political decisions of the day (like how many homes need to be provided-for before government is prepared to build a transmitter for them). I agree that an article on where to get the best prices beer in some town is not material for wikipedia, but this is different. The price of beer changes continually, the existence of a TV transmitter and its history does not. Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:RS. "a brief report by whoever visited and took the photos" is not really the definition of a reliable source (as defined on Wikipedia), but of a decent fan site. "a demonstrable, physical, non-temporary object that plays a real part in the real world around us": we don't have (and don't want) articles on e.g. all raods in the world, even though the same applies to them as well. The rest of your argument is WP:OR but has little to do with the Wikipedia definition of notability. Fram (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might not like it but we already have lots of articles on roads! A488_road for instance. No - I didn't write any of them! Closer to the subject here, there is an article on the little valley of Cwm Twrch. Are we to delete stuff like that too? There won't be a lot left of wikipedia if this goes on. Steve Hosgood (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes; we have articles on major roads, not on minor ones. Similarly, we should have articles on major transmitting stations, not on minor ones. And no one suggests deleting the article on the valley. Fram (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similar deletion discussions have taken place in the past: AfD/Saddleworth Transmitting Station, AfD/Caradon Hill transmitting station. The latter mentions a number of such articles in the US. Notability requires verifiable evidence, so even an unsourced assertion isn't generally enough. -- Trevj (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the subject, but maybe the solution is to ~~Merge~~. Carmel transmitting station could be renamed Carmel UHF Transmitter Group, and then all the individual relay transmitter articles in the group could be merged into a table in the new article, giving mast height, date opened, population served, coordinates, other. I think they all transmit the same stuff, so it is redundant to repeat this information in individual articles. A merge preserves the title. If a particular tower is individually noteworthy, the article can be kept. I am not volunteering to undertake the merge. Welsh TV towers are not my thing. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a constructive suggestion, Aymatth2. I'd thought of it too, but sadly it won't (easily) work. The trouble is that during the PAL analogue TV -> DVB-T digital TV switchover some relays switched affiliation from one group to another - see Mynydd Emroch for instance. It's hard to reflect this properly when the relay just appears in a list. A similar situation had happened 40 years earlier as the 405-line -> 625-line transition was under way - see Llandrindod Wells for instance where the relay changed affiliation (slowly) from relaying two completely different 405-line parent stations to a third one (Carmel) for 625-line purposes. And then there's places like Storeton/Storeton Wales which in the digital-TV era is a relay of two different parent stations. The only easy-to-navigate structure that I've come up with yet is the one before you: a short page on each relay with templated lists at the bottom allowing you to find the various parent transmitters that were active at different points in that site's history (which is sometimes upwards of 50 years BTW). Steve Hosgood (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep based on the above rationale against merge and Harumphy's argument below. The information is there for anyone who wants to look it up, does no harm otherwise, is well sourced. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Transmission Gallery is a reliable source and many of its contributors are experienced broadcast engineers, not just "fans". The article is accurate, informative and entirely harmless. The fact that it's about a minor topic doesn't matter: no trees will die as a result of its publication. I do wish some people round here would contribute useful content of their own instead of casually butchering other editors' work in pursuit of a destructive obsession with WP rules.--Harumphy (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A reliable source according to what? WP:RS? As for "I do wish some people round here would contribute useful content of their own instead of casually butchering other editors' work in pursuit of a destructive obsession with WP rules.", I have created more than 1,000 articles, so please don't give me the anti-deletionist crap. The rest of your arguments in no way addresses the main reason for deletion, i.e. lack of notability. No books, newspapers, ... have written about this transmission tower, which is an entrely run-of-the-mill minor one, with no discerning qualities whatsoever, and which at most could be included in a list of transmission towers per region. Fram (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No matter how many articles you have created, an unreasonable obsession with WP rules is incredibly demoralising for other editors and drives many of them away. If this is a habit then you may have prevented more articles than you have created. What harm does this article do?Harumphy (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look - you have to interpret wikipedia policies according to the situation. You claim to be concerned that "No books, newspapers, ... have written about this transmission tower" as if that is appropriate here. It isn't. Not a lot of books or newspapers (in this day and age) would write anything about television transmitters. So please stop pedantically insisting that the article would only be notable if they did. I doubt any books or newspapers wrote anything about Arfon TV relay, but it just so happens (at just short of 320 m high) to be the tallest man-made structure in Wales. And as I pointed out above, a list of transmission towers per region would not be as easy to interpret as crosslinked sets of individual pages are. Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Significant coverage in reliable sources is what is needed to establish notability. I don't see that any of the references satisfy this, nor could I find any. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I notice that whilst some people want useful pages about real-world things deleted, it seems to be perfectly OK that Wikipedia hosts a mighty tree of articles on The Simpsons TV programme. The main page links to an episode list, which is a list of links to individual wikipedia pages on each and every one of the several hundred "Simpsons" episodes, each with a plot summary, cast list etc. Then there are 13 separate pages listing each of the Simpsons' series, each one again containing a potted plot summary and a link to the individual page per episode. Many of the characters on the Simpsons have a page of their own, and there are portals and all sorts of other stuff documenting the Simpsons. Documenting what?? The Simpsons is a cartoon series! None of the characters even exists! Yet all of this Simpsons related cruft is well-enough regarded that today, the single episode page The_Last_Temptation_of_Krust achieved Featured Article status! I find it had to believe that more than one or two individual episode pages of The Simpsons (or the individual character pages) have ever achieved the degree of "notability" being demanded of this article on the Cwm Twrch TV transmitter. Yet I would not lower myself to barge into any of The Simpsons article tree and nominate some random part of it for deletion. I say that until Wikipedia generates a policy of how deeply it is prepared to host a tree of articles on a minority US TV series, then this current attempt to vandalise documentation of the UK terrestrial TV network be abandoned under WP:SNOW Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We do; it is the notability guidelines that also govern inclusion of articles such as television episode, as well as transmission towers. If that can be satsified for the Cwm Twrch transmitting station, then the article will be kept. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is perfectly acceptable on wikipedia and has enough content and sources to be kept. That said I'm looking for some sort of mast on google maps/earth and can find nothing like notable towers in my county like the Wenvoe and St Hilary transmitters..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When considering our definition of notability, it's important to note the difference between true independent coverage, and routine reports/news etc about the subject. As WP:NRVE states "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". In this case, none of the cited refs actually show notability (as we define it) because they are all standard reports of the type that apply to all relay stations - when it was opened, its location, power, targets, when it converted to Freeview etc. No doubt the same information is available for every relay in the country and to accept such information as enough to show notability is tantamount to saying that all TV relays are inherently notable.

What would be needed for this to be sufficiently notable would be something that lifts it out of the ordinary - if there had been extensive press reporting on massive complaints about it being a blot on the landscape, or on it blowing down and killing someone, or if it had been used as a test case for TV reception in Wales, etc. etc. But there's nothing. It's just one of ~~hundreds(?)~~ maybe ten thousand or so non-notable TV relay stations in the UK. As the article creator said "where do you stop?" - yes, if we allow this, we have to allow articles on every TV relay station in the world, and Wikipedia is not a list of everything that exists. —SMALL JIM 17:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy Delete Basically everything that Smalljim said. There are thousands of relays, and most are pretty insignificant and cover a tiny population. Better would be to have a list of relays on the Carmel page, along with the frequencies, power, height and specifying the location/NGRs. That's all that's necessary. Or even including the 11 December 1989 start date (which is of interest). However the fact it is quite a recent relay (over 7 years after S4C started), and a relay of a relay, that shows how minor a relay it is. Are we to also have an article about every cellular radio tower too? Rapido (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 08:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Era Watch Company[edit]

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

Not notable or sourced with third sources. Cannot find its significance when googled →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 08:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was no consensus when the previous AfD closed earlier today after being relisted twice. What's the point of nominating it again so soon? Dricherby (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Edox (their brand) seems a more common term. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close nomination. This is a waste of time. The previous nomination closed today after languishing on AFD for three weeks with two relistings, and no one spoke up to keep or delete. How long are we going to drag this out? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 08:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Sisters (Kashmir)[edit]

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

Notability not shown, just a grouping of three rivers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to even find any sources confirming that the three rivers together have that name. I note also that, of the two sources that were in the article, one was just some guy's CV and the other ~~failed verification and~~ does not include the word "sister". Dricherby (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does however confirm that the three rivers are right tributaries, which is what it is sourcing. Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

On a closer reading of the source, I agree, so I'll remove the fv tag.Dricherby (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People searching for sources should note that "Nallah" and "Neelum" can also be spelled "Nalla" and "Neelam", respectively. Dricherby (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note for all My dear fellow members: You will not be to find this article name [The Three Sisters (Kashmir)] from any source or from any where. This is a concept a sort of category based on the similarities between the three rivers.

They rise from eastern Himalayan glaciers and lakes in the vicinity of Sonamarg, being the base camp for trekking to thier sources.
They flow from east to west.
Jehlum River which flows from south to north cuts them off, hence becomes their mouth ,and are called right tributories.
All the three rivers have good stock of trout fishes, and flow at a good pace which makes them feasible for river rafting.

These similarities prove that they belong to a common group which was unnamed and unreported till date.I‘ve given them this name based on the similarities, this topic is some kind of a category.

This article meets the critera for deletion, but please consider if there is any way that this article may survive.... I‘m a geographerI can prove the realiblity of the article but I don‘t have any source which will mention the name of the article. Thanks! MehrajMir '^(Talk) 08:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the article is original research and a clear violation of WP:NOTMADEUP. Can we get this closed speedily? Dricherby (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the term can be removed and and article made on tributaries of the Jhelum? Rich Farmbrough, 09:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The tributaries themselves (which are by no means the only tributaries of the Jhelum) already have articles, as does the Jhelum. While a section on tributaries would be appropriate in Jhelum River, I can't imagine what would be said in Tributaries of the Jhelum River that isn't already said in the existing articles of the individual rivers concerned. Dricherby (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would be better at least started as a section. There appears to be a triple peak nearby (relatively) that may be called the three sisters, and some springs, but I think it best if this page goes. Rich Farmbrough, 04:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as original research. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:OR. Even if the author (or anyone) does at some point prove through reliable sources that the rivers are really called "The Three Sisters", this one-liner info can go in the Jhelum River article. No reason to keep separate article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it was a keep if more focus was there on the term "The three sis" rather then their info but still it would not be notable enough. →TSU ^tp* 04:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amor Puro[edit]

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

Non-notable single. Never charted and the references are all to database-style sites. Google produces a number of other sites but nothing with what looks like an indepth review. (There are a number of lyrics websites too, but they seem like copyright infringement rather than official/legal.) Having said that, there's possibly some sources / reviews in non-English languages that I'm not seeing, but there's no inter-wiki links to steal those references from either; I'm happy to withdraw AfD nom if foreign language sources are found, naturally. PROD removed with the comment "Removed deletion template ... The single never charted but, added more refs.. Is that good enough?" Stuartyeates (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSONGS. I checked both Allmusic and Billboard to see if it has charted and it apparently did not. I also checked to see if it had received any notable accolades which it also did not. Erick (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taking the above searches on trust, I can add HighBeam Research as another resource that doesn't mention this single, though it does have 169 hits on "Ivy Queen", several in Spanish. —SMALL JIM 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep, no point in keeping this open for longer as deletion plainly isn't going to happen. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Tyler Clementi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tyler clementi

Articles for deletion/Suicide of Tyler Clementi

Articles for deletion/Suicide of Tyler Clementi (2nd nomination)

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

This is a procedural nomination following an editor's failure to nominate the article correctly for discussion at AfD (this edit and subsequent reversion). I will state my own opinion later, and the fact of this nomination must not be taken as my opinion. The matter has been raised on the article's talk page and also at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep on the basis of notability and verifiability. This is a notable and tragic set of events and meets WP:GNG completely. More could be said, but that would be excessive. The article is under constant revision currently, with unsourced material being either cited or removed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi with this, as they are intrinsically related. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note the unpleasant turn of events at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Deletion_Discussion from the editor who first attempted to flag this article for deletion. It seems to be turning potentially homophobic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep on the basis of notability and verifiability. The suicide's notability can be seen by its extensive coverage in major national and local newspapers and all the network news channels. For example, see the NY Times Index for Dharun Ravi and the NY Times Index for Tyler Clementi. The President, the Governer, etc commented on it at the time. At the time, there had been a recent rash of 4 teenage suicides, most coming in the wake of bullying incidents. An effort called ["It Gets Better"] was started but really took off after Mr. Clementi's death. President Obama and others recorded messages and over 3.5 million watched, verified by youtube.com. Google used the effort as part of its TV advertising effort to show how important the web was. A critical factor in notability is a reasonable amount of coverage and it got much more than that. --Javaweb (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]
Keep, obviously notable. The argument for deletion, in so far as I understand it, is a content issue, which should not be addressed through AfD. Do not merge with New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi: the prosecutors decided not to charge Ravi in connection with Clementi’s death, and so his suicide only played in the background of the court case, which is also notable by itself. --Lambiam 13:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The principle guideline here is WP:EVENT.

An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. -- New Jersey passed an anti-bullying law, the New York Times cites this suicide as catalyst. [22]
Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely -- The suicide received and still receives international coverage, e.g., [23]
An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. [24]
Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. - Still in the news today, and has been a touchstone of reporting on bullying and LGBT teen succeed articles, many of the other deaths in the surrounding months have faded.

In my view, each of the four indicators provides a fairly strong indication of notability in this case. The original nomination's rationale is sufficiently far from Wikipedia policy as to be a source of concern. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Lambiam. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's a pity that there has had to be so much bad feeling erupting here in the wake of the news coverage of the sentencing of Mr. Ravi. The user who first requested deletion, at the article talkpage, has unfortunately made arguments that largely fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If I look for the policy-based issues, they are these. The original nominator believes that there is very little reliable sourcing for the suicide page, separate from sourcing for the trial page. This is completely untrue, as an examination of the sources on the suicide page will show. The editor believes that Wikipedia should avoid articles about suicides generally, as suicides are usually not notable and motives are difficult to source. That claim reflects a lack of understanding of how there is ample sourcing to establish notability for this particular page, indeed a surfeit. As for how we cover issues of motivation, without falling into WP:SYNTH, there are legitimate issues of POV and of representation of source material, but these are issues to be dealt with through the normal editing processes, not through deletion. Indeed, there is an active content RfC in progress about that. As for the point raised above about merging the suicide and trial pages, although I have expressed, at the pages, some concerns about POV-forking, I believe that ultimately it is a good thing to have two separate pages, exactly for the reason of not conflating Ravi's conviction with the causes of the suicide. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it remains about the event and does not spinout to a Tyler Clementi article. The event itself is what has become notable. Tarc (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability guidelines, to put it mildly. No valid criteria have been suggested for its deletion, afaik, just a novel, WP:OR-based interpretation of the facts. Rivertorch (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James E. (Jamie) Carroll[edit]

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

Political strategist of asserted but poorly referenced notability. Article strikes a highly promotional fluff bio tone and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, making it remarkably unsurprising that the creator's username, User:Jec79, corresponds so closely to the article topic's initials and birthdate. Conflict of interest? Naaaaah, couldn't be. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how he meets the bar for notability. PK T(alk) 22:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not good enough refs which makes it fail WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 04:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haweli Ek Paheli[edit]

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

Unsourced and unsourcable hoax article. Fails verifiability, and thus fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but preserve somewhere lest it come back. Most peculiar. Egg Centri c 18:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin Please consider MfD for User:Haweli Ek Paheli when closing. Wouldn't apply until then. Everyone else, consider combing through this [25], the contribs from the article creator. Sniff, sniff... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, having that particular username to promote a film is itself a violation of WP:PRODNAME. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And too, the userpage for User:Gaganpreet S Sokhi is set up to look like a BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. In addition, I've filed an SPI regarding the article's creator. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The entire box of puppets found has been quickly confirmed by checkuser and have been dealt with accordingly Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Woooo! Such a made-up article. Delete it! And don't make any film on this plot. There are better chances that the money kept untouched in a piggy bank would earn more profits. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really amazing work done in creating the article. But I still wonder that how did it get away from Special:NewPages? →TSU ^tp* 10:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Sigh, all I want to know is how a film with so many awards escaped my notice, especially in 2009, when I scanned newspapers back and front for movie releases. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear hoax and per AnimeshKulkarni :) --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 20:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge beer[edit]

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

Drinking game with no evident notability. It shows up on some sites of "lists of drinking games for your party", but no coverage in Google News, Books, or Scholar. (I'll admit it sounds like fun, though, so if anyone's in my area and wants to test its notability in person, game on.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks wholly non-notable - possibly just something made up one day, as are most drinking games. It's a shame none of the ones I used to play are on WP, but they're not notable either. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnotable drinking game. It would also be relevent to mention how the whole article is pretty much a game guide, which would fall under WP:NOTHOWTO. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The closest to a reliable source I could find is a passing mention in an ESPN column which, amusingly enough, links to the article under discussion... That's not enough to establish notability. Dricherby (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to drinking game. It's been around for three years, and it's attracted over three hundred hits in the last month — while the nominator has demonstrated good reasons for not having an article about this topic. there's nothing wrong with the existence of the page name itself. Nyttend (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough and totally unreferenced thus fails WP:GNG. A redirect will not be a good idea because there will be 1000s of drinking games and we wont redirect them all. →TSU ^tp* 15:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Kuhns[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. This article is misleading because he never actually played in a single NFL game. He had a pretty good college career, and if another ambitious editor wants to tackle this to make it notable for college career purposes I'd be ok with that. However, as it is now, I don't see this person meeting requirements for an entry on Wikipedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG either. I don't see any non-trivial coverage of him in mainstream media sources. Also, he doesn't apppear to have had a particularly notable college career. This site indicates that he totaled only 110 rushing yards in four years at Wisconsin. If I've missed coverage that others think is non-trivial, I'd reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: The bio from the high school that Kunhs attended claims he was a three-time All-Big 10 player. I can find no source verifying this. If he were a three-time All-Big 10 fullback, I would expect him to have quite a lot of coverage, which I don't see. It appears that the All-Big 10 claim on the high school web site (and nowhere else) is probably an error. Cbl62 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source verifying twice, but likewise, I don't see a lot of coverage, and what coverage exists is somewhat vague.Marikafragen (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable former college football player. Although he signed with the New York Jets and St. Louis Rams as a free agent, he never played a down in a regular season NFL game (see [26] and [27]), and is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. Did not receive first-team All-American honors or other major awards, is not a member of the CFB Hall of Fame, and did not set a major CFB record per WP:NCOLLATH. Totaled 349 yards from scrimmage in four-year college career, scoring a total of four touchdowns (see [28]). Contrary to high school HOF website, did not receive All-Big Ten honors (see 1998, 2000, 2001. There are dozens of mentions found in Google News Archive, but all independent source coverage that I reviewed varied from trivial mentions to routine game coverage (see [29]). Subject does not satisfy notability guidelines of WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG—delete with extreme prejudice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus agrees with the nominator that the premise of and information in the article is apparently incorrect, and that as such the article can be deleted. This is without prejudice to then creating a redirect or dab page in its stead, which is an editorial decision. Sandstein 18:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Magazines[edit]

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

The subject of this article has never existed; the article is based on unreliable sources and original research. This is an incredible mess which is steadily contaminating other Wikipedia content.
Forty years ago, magazine distribution in the US was handled by a variety of national and regional distributors, one of which was Curtis Circulation. Magazines were sold returnably, and returns, unsurprisingly, had to be processed through the distributors who originally circulated the magazines. Magazines often identified their distributors on their covers, to make handling returns more efficient, and frequently the identification was done with an easily visible logo. The use of such logos was rendered obsolete/unnecessary as use of the UPC became common; the UPC effectively identified the distributor in a scanner-readable form.
In the 1970s, Marvel Comics published a line of magazines, with a wide variety of publisher logos, indicia, etc. A common feature of all these magazines was that they all carried the logo of their distributor, Curtis Circulation. Somehow the belief has developed that this logo actually indicated an actual line or "imprint" of publications, "Curtis Magazines", even though that label was never used on the magazines themselves, or had any relevant contemporaneous usage. (There was a real Curtis magazine line from Curtis Publishing, flagshipped by the Saturday Evening Post, but it was fading away if not entirely shut down at the time.) Curtis Circulation and Marvel Comics eventually shared the same corporate parent, but were independent businesses, and the Curtis logo appeared regularly on magazines from many different publishers, as well as on other Marvel magazines not included in this pseudo-line [30] [31] [32].
The Wikipedia article compounds this misconception with gross factual errors. The article says, foir example, that "the Marvel name did not appear on the magazines until 1981", it is evident from the covers shown for individual Marvel magazines that this was not the case, and that the magazines were regularly identified as being part of a Marvel publishing line File:MonstersUnleashed01.jpg File:VampireTales.jpg [33] [34] [35].
The article is an unsalvageable mess. If we stripped out all the OR, synthesis, and unreliably sourced claims, all that would be left is a haphazardly selected list of magazines published by Marvel's corporate parent -- some not by Marvel itself -- not even including a full set of Marvel's own magazines. Better to blow this away and, if anyone cares to write an accurate article, write one about the rather different line of magazines that actually existed.
I know there are quite a few websites which talk about these "Curtis Magazines". None are reliable on this point, most are SPS, most apparently postdate the WP article. The article cites no relevant contemporaneous sources for the "Curtis" line's existence, and I can't find any after long searching. This is some sort of comic collectors' misconception that Wikipedia is helping to spread. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having only done a little bit of copy editing on this article and not having written any portions of the text as far as I can remember, I've never looked that closely at this article before. It certainly looks as if Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is making valid points.

Three things, two of which are background, the other of which is for discussion. First, as Hullaballoo no doubt suspected, the Grand Comics Database has no publisher, publisher's brand or indicia for this Curtis. Indeed, GCD, which uses the indicia data, attributes various of the b/w magazines to different publishing names: Marvel Monster Group (Brand) [36] for Dracula Lives, Monsters Unleashed and some others, and Marvel Magazine Group [37] for selected issues of Bizarre Adventures and Savage Sword of Conan. But mostly, GCD gives the publisher as plain ol' Marvel or Marvel Comics Group.

Second, the Cadence Industries article refers to the distributor Curtis Circulation that had originated as the circulation department of Curtis Publishing Company, publisher of the Saturday Evening Post. As I said, just background.

The one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is that Curtis logo in the top-right corner spot where Marvel traditionally had its company logo. That indicates that the publisher wanted to communicate a brand identity to the reader; the publisher would not have had to do that for the retailer. On the other hand, early Marvel comics had "IND" on covers, indicating they were distributed by Independent News, so perhaps the Curtis logo on the covers means nothing more than that.

Overall, a good call by Hullabaloo. There may be a Marvel magazines article to be done, but this isn't it. Support. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the original creator of the article, I have since learned that the information I had was wrong. There was a recent discussion on the GCD mailing lists about Curtis, where it was confimed that there was no Curtis line and nobody at Marvel referred to the Curtis seal magazines as anything other than Marvel. So I have no objection to this article's deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pc13 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 May 2012

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shouldn't the article be corrected and cleaned up? Maybe it links to something like Marvel black and white magazines of the 1970s? In part I am concerned that Wikipedia has had this misinformation in it since 2005 and correcting the information seems more likely to undo the spread of misinformation than simply deleting it. Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 04:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marvel Comics - The information above by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz would be good to have collected and written up as a subheading in the Marvel article, which we could redirect the current Curtis article to. This would also prevent the 'Curtis Magazines' article from popping up again in the future.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 14:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The original content creator accepts the nominator's rationale as valid. No need to overthink this. Carrite (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Stvfetterly. Imaginary topics shouldn't get articles unless they're covered in-depth by sources, but when non-RS sources mention something frequently, it becomes a likely search target. Since there's an obvious related topic in Marvel Comics, redirecting is the best route. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this otherwise rather plausible approach is that Curtis Magazines would be better redirected to Curtis Publishing Company, which actually published a line of Curtis magazines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and just rename it Obviously this is a real thing, jut the wrong name, and some information needs to be corrected. Call it Magazines printed by Marvel Comics or Magazines printed by Marvel Comics to get around the Comics Code Authority. There are many blue links in the article, linking to articles for these various notable magazines. If nothing else, most of the content could be made into a list article. List of magazines published by Marvel Comics Dream Focus 09:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 09:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of pages link to this one. [38] Were all the magazines made by Marvel published through Curtis Circulation? Were they officially called Curtis Magazines? Anyone have one where they can look inside the first page and see what information is at the bottom? Whoever it list as the publisher or copyright holder, should have their name on this article. Dream Focus 04:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly redirect, but it seems to me that Hullaballoo makes the right call on this one. Putting the info he gives into the Marvel article does seem reasonable (if it's not there already).Marikafragen (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other information perhaps should go there. But what about the list part of the article? Shouldn't there be a list of all notable publications of them? Most of them are blue links to actual articles. Dream Focus 16:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that other Defunct imprints of Marvel have their own articles.

These are all listed in the Marvel Comics template, along with other imprints which are not defunct, and other things they have published. There is no doubt that these magazines exist, and some sold quite well. We just need to find the proper name to categorize them in. A rename is the most reasonable option. Dream Focus 16:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Hands of Kung Fu 22 has the CC for the publisher on its cover, that meaningless apparently. I looked the thing through, and it doesn't say who published it anywhere in the issue, nor on the cover. It does have J Jameson running his newspaper and making a reference to Peter Parker. So its certainly Marvel. A list of Marvel publications that aren't included in the many existing articles I think is in order. Or a list of publications that didn't have Marvel listed on them, but was done by them. Dream Focus 16:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into this too deeply, but why not make it a disambiguation page with one entry leading to Curtis Publishing Company and the other saying something along the lines of "A non-existent imprint of Marvel Comics" - ensuring that HW's excellent summary (which I assume can be fully verified) is covered in that article. If this is simply deleted it will only be likely to be re-created by some misguided fan. —SMALL JIM 13:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BestEverAlbums.com[edit]

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

I found no notability per WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This violates WP:ADVERT. It's an advertisement for a website. NJ Wine (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's non-notable, but it doesn't have any advertising language. It just reads like an article even though it is non-notable. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: In addition to creating greatest album charts (any of which can be exported to CSV files, or be subscribed to via RSS feeds), members can also create personal lists of favourite albums, participate on the forums, track their music collections and assign comments or ratings. That sounds like an advertising promotion to me. NJ Wine 01:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like a description of the website to me. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cool site but I'm unable to find anything to suggest it meets WP:WEB. Gongshow ^Talk 21:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cool site, and at least as notable as the other music websites listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_websites (Traffic stats for BestEverAlbums here: https://www.quantcast.com/besteveralbums.com ). In no way does the article page sound like an advert, it's just a description of the features. 80.91.67.37 (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 04:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — 80.91.67.37 (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC) It's a notable site within its niche. You could maybe compare it to GameRankings, RateYourMusic & sites like that.[reply]
Delete. Fails to establish notability per WP:WEB. The only sources aside from Alexa (which itself is not a reliable source) is the site itself. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — 92.21.183.2 (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Agree with a previous poster. If you look at the websites in the Music Websites category, BestEverAlbums is as at least as notable as most of them (& more so in many cases). Yes, ignore the Alexa stats as they are unreliable, but a previous poster linked to the QuantCast stats which are much more accurate.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baylife[edit]

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

Rejected double-PROD.
Rationale for deletion: Wikipedia is not a dictionary and per WP:NOTNEO ("An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.") + no reliable sources to indicate notability of this term. (Urban Dictionary is not an acceptable source). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable neologism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO. The lack of reliable sources is pretty telling, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism dicdef. Dricherby (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. →TSU ^tp* 04:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Bertram (mathematician)[edit]

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

No evidence that William Bertram meets the WP:ACADEMIC notability standard. Article appears to violate the premise that "notability is not inherited." NJ Wine (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to bring this to AFD. The article was quite happily sitting on Proposed Deletion. Proposed Deletion is there in part to take the load off AFD. Don't put that load back on for no reason. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Sjeez! I hadn't even seen that. And the prod was almost expired, too. What a waste of time! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NJ Wine (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really see what NOTINHERITED has to do with this (there is no claim that his parents are notable), but the article is clear enough about the rest: a thesis and a few publications and an unsourced claim that his thesis is "one of great interest and requested by local and international researchers studying the field". Even if the latter is true, as long as those international researchers don't produce publications showing the notability of this thesis and its author, WP:PROF is not met. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows that his 2004 and 2005 Physica papers have 18 and 3 citations, respectively. He seems to have 1 other paper in Phsyica, "Analytic solutions for optimal statistical arbitrage trading", having 1 citation and 2 others, "An example of a misclassification problem applied to Australian equity data" and "Measuring time dependent volatility and cross-sectional correlation in Australian equity returns" having no citations. This is obviously well below our conventional threshold for WP:PROF 1. Article was created by a SPA account Lyoulah, which was active for precisely 1 day in 2009, there are no substantive links to this article, etc. – uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Agricola. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. The fact that the article had an almost-expired PROD tag is relevant as well - this just makes it official. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of refs make it fail GNG and many things are unsourced. →TSU ^tp* 04:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to delete but I agree that this article needs work. I first thought it was a copyvio but nothing comes up on google. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative language systems[edit]

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

promotional essay. It isn't clear where this fits into the range of therapies, it isn't clear if there are any actual studies on its effectiveness, it isn't clear what followers of other techniques think of it, it isn't clear how widely it is used--whether it is idiosyncratic, or standard. I am unable to rewrite it with going back to the original sources and starting over--I can penetrate most jargon, but I've given up on this one. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the merits or lack thereof of this therapy may be, both the Google book search and the Google scholar search show widespread non-trivial coverage, making the topic notable; any content issues with the article itself appear fixable. --Lambiam 02:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This does sound quite a technical article composed by some one who has knowledge of the subject, and it might contribute to other linguistic-related articles in Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject area is talk therapy and family therapy rather than linguistics. --Lambiam 17:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs a better context and introduction to broaden the article's accessibility by those not intimately involved in this approach. Help; not Deletion. SBaker43 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found many different sources on Google:Scholar [39]. The article does need work, I agree, although after reading it, I do understand it. Not sure I'd want to try to edit it, although I think the big problem is longer sentences than normal -- I found one with at least 55 words in it (pretty typical of academic writing, though).Marikafragen (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems the people who want to keep it think it might be an acceptable article--igf someone write it properly, but nobody seems actually willing to do it. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may be a notable topic, but in its current state the article brings the project into disrepute by describing a pseudoscientific practice without any scientific criticism or response. Them From Space 21:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Michael Milko[edit]

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

Changed from PROD to AfD per request. Non-notable person. Nearly all google results are mirrors of Wikipedia. Nothing to show Y&R role was notable, only mention found so far was one sentence in the obituary, which provided no more information than already here. Election results are just that. Results. Not significant coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, have searched but not seen anything usable as a reference. Comment: Don't see the link to fashion? Mabalu (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly a colorful character but doesn't meet notability for the coverage currently in the article and the available Google News and Google Books hits are basically just directory entries. Almost could meet WP:CRIME for repeatedly abducting children but only arrests are mentioned, not convictions, and none of it was high-profile enough anyways. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 15:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply no significant or continued coverage. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cappa[edit]

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

Note that this AFD includes The Rescue
Very minute evidence of notability. This article has rather awkward refs, and most sources are already included. The best sources, however, are to CCM Magazine and Billboard. Also I've found, no evidence of play of music on any major stations. Qxukhgiels56 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charting album with charting single so subject meets WP:MUSICBIO #2 twice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BIG KEEP per above and so much more!HotHat (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found him on NRT Behind the Song, Cross Rhythms a UK-based publication on Christian music,Station [WJTL] playing the song "All I Really Want".HotHat (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator doesn't seem to understand WP:MUSIC, as he or she has made at least one other AFD on an artist with a charted single. The chart positions check out, and the sources shown by HotHat look decent. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 EPUB#Software reading systems. Jenks24 (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EPUBReader[edit]

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

I am not sure that this Firefox browser extension is worth a separate article. The sources that cover it seem to be mostly of the WP:SELFPUB variety; blogs and such. There is some brief coverage in sources that may be deemed reliable and therefore conferring notability, technically, but nonetheless there is just very little to say about the software without letting the article become a software directionary entry (WP:NOTDIR): it's an add-on that reads e-books, and that's about it. For our purposes, its inclusion in EPUB#Software reading systems might be sufficient, or it might be merged to somewhere else. Sandstein 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect as EPUB#Software reading systems already contains a concise form of the basic information in the article. I agree with the nominator that encyclopaedic expansion of the article would be difficult and is unlikely to occur. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per above. No notability. SL93 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though I agree with Paul Erik that he's notable, there's not enough participation for a "keep" close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Griesar[edit]

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

Sideman in a band, no non-trivial sources cited. Notability asserted by inheritance only. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He was one of the founding members of the Dave Matthews Band, and also received coverage for his solo work in The Post and Courier (briefly), in The Hook, and in Rolling Stone. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

METROPLAN Town and Regional Planners[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, mainly sourced to company mission statement and SPS, no apparent outside coverage, not even in refs 5 and 6 discussing project the company is supposed to be involved in. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the sources relate to a Aerotropolis project rather than to the specifics of this firm's role as a contractor in that project; insufficient independent evidence of notability to meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly insufficient notability from independent sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP. However, if someone wishes to write a sourced biographical article that contains more then Marlon Taylor is an American actor. He is perhaps best known for his role as the young Mike Hanlon in the television movie It then go for it.. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Taylor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Needs another look IMO. Last AFD closed as "keep" with nothing but an WP:ITSNOTABLE from the article's creator. One quartenary role in a TV movie and a couple minor roles here and there do not transfer to notability. None of his roles was significant or lasting, nor could I find any coverage on him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. No sources have been provided other than the subject's IMDb page, and the evidence provided does not clearly establish this actor as having achieved notability yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Last relist - article is a BLP.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BuddyTV[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability requirements for a Wikipedia article, in that the only sources for the article are 1) it's own website, 2) trivial local coverage for Seattle (this is not Wikiseattlepedia), and 3) sites hosting paid press releases from the company. Prod was attempted a while back and removed by anon user with no explanation. COI editor came back to add more self-serving press releases and trivial coverage. Still looking for mainstream, notable coverage anywhere that could meet Wikipedia standards for an article. Without that this blatant attempt at free advertising needs to be removed. DreamGuy (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable; for example, see books Social TV or Celeb 2.0. Warden (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly doesn't meet WP:WEB criteria with current citations (definately has an issue with Wikipedia:NOTRELIABLE. Colenel Warden's book finds are interesting but more likely make BuddyTV a candidate for merging with Social media and television along with Ology and other TV commentary sites rather than having it's own article. --Joshuaism (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic certainly passes WP:WEB criteria, as well as WP:GNG. Here are some sources comprised of significant coverage from reliable third-party sources, including: [40], [41], [42], [43]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG, I'm curious as to what the problem is. An article is allowed to use primary sources, editors don't have to give a reason when declining a PROD, COI editing is not a reason for deletion and the references have acceptable depth for the purpose. I don't understand the "Wikiseattlepedia" comment and would like a verification of which actual Wikipedia policies that refers to. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sorry DreamGuy but I have to agree with the "keep cabal" on this one. 3 of the 4 sources provided by Northamerica1000 look kosher to me and unlike WP:CORP, WP:WEB doesn't require non-local supersources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus seems to be that, even if only notable online shopping sites are included, the list will be far too broad to be of any value. Additionally, there are concerns that this is too similar to the recently deleted List of online stores. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping sites[edit]

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

I'm not sure what the value of this list is. We already have a number of categories (that themselves need to be cleaned up), but trying to maintain a list including which products are sold and which countries are served just seems like a guarantee that this is going to be always out of date. KarlB (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as described in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of online stores, plus the fact that this list isn't clearly distinguishable from that list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is intended of course, is list of notable shopping sites, and it is just as important now as it would have been when there were only a very few of them. More valuable actually; the red-linked ones need examination to see if there should be an article, and removed if not clearly notable. Strange pair of arguments for deletion: first, that there will be additional entries (there will never be reason to remove them, because once notable the site remains notable no matter what happens to it, and that since this group is very notable and very well known, the list is not encyclopedic. And there seems to be an argument we should merge the two lists because of overlap, but that's a argument for keep and merge; it also doesn't fit well with the argument for deletion at the other list, that it is already too broad. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The criteria of the article has been changed to "This is a list of notable shopping sites" in the article's lead section. As such, the list has a discriminate focus, and serves to provide information about the sites as well as serving as a useful navigation guide for Wikipedia articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete. This list (and the other one, which I can't tell the difference between) purports to list the contents of these categories:
- Category:Online retailers 82
- Category:Online retail companies by country 339
- Category:Book selling websites 38
- Category:Online music stores 105
- Category:Online grocers 18
- Category:Commerce websites 181
- Category:Online music stores 105
If we add this up, it is about 868 articles which could conceivably be placed here. This does not even count *other* retailers which do some form of business online, allowing one to buy gift cards, mobile phone minutes, groceries, etc. I think it would be much more valuable to spend time sorting out the categories that exist, than to try to spend time maintaining this list which should technically have over 800 items in it. Finally the attempt to centrally catalogue what these sites sell, and where they sell to, is not encyclopedic or worth of a separate list; the list of items sold by any of these stores will change constantly; for example, 1-800 flowers, which is on both lists, doesn't only sell flowers; and the Amazon description of 'everything' is a great use of that term for marketing purposes, but also inaccurate; we might say amazon sells *a lot* of things, but they don't sell 'everything'. Thus, this list is too broad; and the categories suffice; I think a more interesting list might be notable retailers who do *not* have an online shopping available, since that is becoming more and more rare these days. --KarlB (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However, per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too broad. I really have to wonder how seriously to take wanting to keep both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of online stores. One or the other, maybe, sure, everyone's entitled to their opinion and all. But both? Really? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of notable entries which go hand-in-hand with the categories, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad in scope for a discriminate list to emerge from the criteria for inclusion. Not all appropriate categories make for appropriate list articles. Them From Space 16:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This relatively new list is a close duplicate of List of online stores, with the only real difference being a few red links. I favor keeping the original list but see no reason to retain this one. Most of the comments in this discussion seem to have been copy-pasted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of online stores; while the same arguments may apply, we must take into account the overarching consideration of duplication. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a prime example of WP:LISTCRUFT. My primary issue: #6. The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, and #1. The list was created just for the sake of having such a list. Now, if it were a list of the 100/1000 (whatever) largest online retailers, OK, but he only requirement for inclusion is notability. It's WAY too broad, hence, it's essentially unlimited. Roodog2k (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a broad, unlimited list with unclear criteria considering that most stores sells online. Secret ^account 02:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus here is to delete but I would also like to add that I tried to verify his existence too and the only thing that came up was a suggestion that he did exist from the google summary of henrytoland.com. However the actual text is hidden inside a poorly designed website. There's not enough sources out there to write an article on him. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Toland[edit]

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

not found any reliable sources Shizhao (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ad--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be only known for one thing: the founding of a minor brand of leatherware.--A bit iffy (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't even verify that he existed. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many of the arguments here to delete are not grounded in policy - so I am relisting to allow for more policy-based arguments to delete.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you don't consider my rationale as not grounded in policy. My rationale is WP:V. SL93 (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surpised by the relisting. By the way: can anyone get into the henrytoland.com site? All I get is "Henry Toland, United Kingdom" no matter which language/country I choose, but I don't know if that's because I'm on an iPad. If there really is nothing there, then I suspect the article has been created as a fake back story.—A bit iffy (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my last edit, I meant I had been hoping there might be a company history section on henrytoland.com providing sources. But I doubt there is, so I think the article should be deleted as unverifiable.—A bit iffy (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why relisted? It is obvious that this is a China-based company which is spamming on wikipedia. And the corresponding chinese version has been deleted already.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Michaels[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and general notability guidelines. AVN nominations are scene awards which, through consensus, are disregarded in the consideration of notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nominator's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. jni (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The non awards info is based on unreliable sourcing. The info comes from either a crowdsourced online dabase - or from interviews with the subject of the articles and are therefore promary sources.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Read They Learn[edit]

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

I have to admire the idea here that Hindustan Times is taking this initiative on. Unfortunately, we are not here to promote that.

-- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A temporary one-year project confined to just the Delhi-NCR that seems somewhat promotional since funding is connected to the sales of newspapers. Perhaps if this has a substantial effect after the year is over, or is renewed, and hence becomes widely discussed enough in independent reliable sources so that it fulfills Wikipedia notability requirements it will be a good topic for an article in the future. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 07:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like an advert rather than a Wikipedia entry. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advertisement per User:AroundTheGlobe-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devagiri church[edit]

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

No indication of notability JoelWhy (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWikipedia is not a directory of every church in the world. Most individual church congregations and the buildings they meet in do not satisfy WP:ORG. This article does not present any reliable sources to show that this particular congregation does. Edison (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An average church. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a small church with 300 plus families does not satisfy notability.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tawuran[edit]

Doesn't assert notability with reliable sources. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 14:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A sourced essay. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom - thorough discussion not really required - an uncategorised, un sourced, anecdotal item SatuSuro 12:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at this revision of the article? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a good question - and yes the revision indicated - a single source (ie a thesis) is being promoted - with little corroboration from reliable 3rd party sources about the subject in Jakarta (the added references look like items referenced in the thesis) and it looks like a self promotion of a thesis/report - yet someone has chosen to remove the referenced material - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tawuran&action=history - I would reconsider my delete support - if someone could explain what is going on (Rmb or whoever) SatuSuro 14:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sources listed in the "further reading" section give some indication of notability of this subject (I took a look at the sociology paper and its sources). I might be off base here, but I'm guessing that the creator of the article actually has some expertise in this subject area. He or she became embarrassed about the article being tagged for deletion, and then blanked most of the content as "preparation" for what he or she saw as inevitable deletion. It's probably quite discouraging. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues at stake - Indonesia project has had a few articles in the last five years or more that are simply vehicles to carry an individuals academic work basically as self promotion - that is not what WP:ABOUT would say is an appropriate utilisation - however the subject would need corroboration in news reports as to the actual events - and the theories and refs that the author has utilised - may or may not be of relevance to such an article... And if it is any help the Indonesian wikipedia article has no WP:RS and is of no use to understanding the issue Satu Suro 12:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice for later, neutral recreation. Interschool conflicts are indeed a common thing to see here; one between two schools in Yogyakarta closed a major street in that city. As such, the subject may be notable, but requires rewriting from scratch. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should never have come here WP:CSD#G11 blantant promotion, but since its here WP:NOT points to WP:SOAP. Gnan garra 23:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 British supercentenarians. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Pearce[edit]

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

The subject's claim to notability here is that she happens to currently be the oldest living person who was born in 1901. A search discovered no evidence that she meets WP:N's non-trivial coverage in multiple, third-party sources: I found one article on her 111th birthday ([44]) and then a handful of trivial mentions on lists of the world's oldest this and that. As of this nomination, the article is nothing more than a collection of (mostly unsourced) trivia about her longevity. Canadian Paul 15:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing significant about her; she's the 3rd-oldest person in the UK. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and after she dies, someone else will be the oldest person born in the 20th century. Not seeing any notability here. If she makes it to the oldest person in the UK, then perhaps that might provide a stronger claim to notability, but not automatically so. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- To List of British supercentenarians; re-evaluate as needed. Dru of Id (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that there's no indication of notability (yet). HighBeam Research has one passing mention in a 2010 piece in Lynn News (another local paper) about Florence Green. Sorry, Irene! —SMALL JIM 21:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British supercentenarians per WP:BLP1E. Additional ref at [45]. -- Trevj (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British supercentenarians. Almost closed this as redirect myself, but that'd be probably be supervoting. Anyway, worth a redirect because she does have some coverage in independent reliable sources and is, in my book, therefore a plausible search term. Jenks24 (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jenks24, including his comment about almost closing the nomination. She may be notable ... in about 5 years. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rygos naujienos[edit]

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

Seems like the article is for advertising new business venture - says there is such online newsite, but link to it goes to e-mail server of the owner ~~Xil (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep over half the article discusses the previous publication of that name, which was a major newspaper until 1915. The content about the later part needs a little adjustment, along the lines of the Lithuanian WP article [46] but the article is not overly promotional. I would think it very poor judgment to delete a historic newspaper that the WP of its country of origin thinks notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania is not the country of its origin. There is hardly any source in Latvian (and usually notable local publications in other languages are covered) on it and nothing much in English either ~~Xil (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This newspaper is of Lithuanian origin. It was founded by the famous Lithuanian writer Liudvikas Jakaviciaus and was printed in Ryga (Latvia). It was a newspaper for the Lithuanian Diaspora living in Latvia and it was written in English. In the National Library of Lithuania there is a complete collection of this newspaper and there is some of this newspaper in the Siauliu Ausros Museum in LT. It was a very important newspaper but to my knowledge there is not a new version. Megan2012

Keep. All references to the contemporary reestablishment of this early 20th-century newspaper have been excised, thus laying to rest nominator's concerns concerning advertising. As to nominator's subsequent concern about a lack of sourcing in English or Latvian, I will grant that this is true, but the Lithuanian sources provided in the article and others available from Google Books and Everything searches are sufficient for me. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm currently working on an article on a newspaper of similar vintage, so this topic is near to me. Also near to me, believe it or not, is volume 3 of Mazoji Lietuviskoji Tarubine Enciklopedija (Small Lithuanian Soviet Encyclopedia) (Vilnius: Mintis, 1971), which includes an entry for this liberal newspaper, published from December 1909 to September 1915 on page 80. This is by no means the only Lithuanian encyclopedia on the planet, presume existence of other sources. Leave the serious historical shit alone! Carrite (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I'm trying to figure out what the issue was here; I guess it's deleted material on the contemporary website by the same name. A century after the fact, rest assured that there is no connection. There are additional sources listed in the references section, particularly the Lithuanian journalism encyclopedia listed first, which plus the work I cite should be enough for a keep. The contemporary site is gone and should stay gone; it should have been edited away by the nominator rather than dragging the main piece to AFD, in my view. Anyway, onward... Carrite (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Half of the article was an advertisment, I did a websearch and couldn't find anything to establish that the topic is notable enough. With diaspora newspaper it is significant that in the country it was published in, no one seems to have heard about it. I figured it might as well be some guy who felt like connecting to his roots for better marketing by using name of newspaper his ancestors used to publish (and on the other hand, if I was to believe that the whole thing is not an ad, it might as well have been that the supposed new edition is genuine, notable project - hence I didn't remove it) ~~Xil (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:CRYSTAL Please see SW's list of points that I too ignored because they had no merit. Guerillero | My Talk 07:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 150[edit]

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

This event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no indication that the event it's self will have any enduring notability. Any claim to such is at best speculation for an event still over three months away. The coverage it has to date is limited to the routine type of event announcements. Mt king ^(edits) 20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:There was a recent discussion about merging this to the 2012 UFC events article (or to a newly minted 2012 UFC Numbered events article) recently on the talk page that was shouted down for a variety of non-policy reasons. It is a shame that the AfD is started up on the same day the merge closes, but the article cannot stand on it's own for the time being Hasteur (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Future event with no established notability. We're not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you accept a merge to a list article as an alternative to deletion? Hasteur (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in support of the '<year> UFC events' style articles, and including it in an article on 2012 UFC events would have more chance of survival than a standalone article. I'm concerned, however, about notability - we generally cover future events on the basis of their notability right now, not on whether they might become notable later. Right now from looking at the article, I don't see any current indication of notability. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet we give the same style treatment to future episodes of TV series or future WWE events. I know this goes in the line of WP:OTHERSTUFF but I'm trying to demonstrate good will by attempting to save as much of the MMA content as possible. As has been demonstrated with previous UFC events, once we get closer to the event or after it, there's significant coverage present. Hasteur (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand you're trying to act as a negotiator of sorts on MMA matters, but you do rightly point out that WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really justification. If I had the time and awareness of future TV show articles I'd probably vote to delete those as well. Significant coverage is certainly a boon, but ideally to establish notability we should try to have coverage from independent sources - newspaper articles, televised news coverage, that sort of thing.

I know you're experienced and don't need to be told this, but it's perhaps worth noting that this project is an encyclopedia, not a sports almanac or fansite. You might reasonably expect to pick up yesterday's hot-off-the-press copy of Britannica and find an entry there on a notable MMA fight in January, but you're not going to find a three line entry about an event that won't happen for 4 months with the only info being tentative card data. I think this is one of those situations where fans need to understand that we're not a news site, it's not our goal to have up-to-the-minute information available. We're slower-paced than that, and it won't hurt anyone to hold off on posting information about a future event until it actually becomes notable. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit... I've gone round the bend in trying to keep these articles. Someone please apply an oily fish to my face liberally for trying to save everything MMA related. Hasteur (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some editors dont like UFC and I think we should do what they say. Portillo (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2012 in UFC events. This article contains practically no prose as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT. It contains only routine coverage of the fight card (the fight card itself). It lacks diverse sources by having only a single non-MMA source which covers only the location of this event and previous UFC events in Denver and nothing more about the event itself. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Wikipedia and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes. See here, for example. I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because a world title in a top organization is being defended at the event, making it inherently notable. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the fact that this is a future event that has not occurred yet. BearMan998 (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination is known to be disruptive to ongoing RFC. Article is a breakout of notable topic list of UFC events that it is inappropriate to merge there due to balance (see WP:SS). A compromise of merge to 2012 in UFC events is also possible. But most important, an ongoing local agreement of how to prevent disruptive AFDs needs to be forged first. JJB 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete: As per nomination. --Tow Trucker talk 21:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote This AfD isn't about notability. I tried to find a guideline for when an upcoming UFC Event page can be created, but failed to find any clear guidelines in my quick search. I see no problem when an Event has been announced (date and location has been confirmed) *and* when the Main Event has been filled. Main Card and Preliminary Card is subject to change, up and until fight day, really. I agree (but WP:IDONTLIKEIT) that a card announced three months ahead of time fails as a stand-alone wikipage. This is not to be confused that it fails notabillity! UFC 151 was deleted, and I see no factional difference to let this Afd fail and the other pass. The only difference is time and the limit should be discussed. If we should follow current rules, no UFC page should be created until the day of the event. That is subpar of the expectation a normal user have. A future compromise is to have a section on the badly formed Omnibus or a new page for upcoming UFC Events.Mazter00 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE All Similar AfDs. There seems be a large number of MMA related pages in the sports category that all have very similar contents, same AfD arguments and same users making them. The fact that I have to copy/paste this several times is evidence enough. The procedure for multiple deletions should be used to nominate, say, all UFC events instead of one by one. Doing them individually seems to be a enormous waste of time (as evidenced by the last few months of this), and at least by doing noms all at once the space can get some sense of closure and a consistent way forward instead of the incoherent mess that it's left in. TL;DR: 200 nom >> 1 nom, just do the 1 for all applicable pages so everyone can move on. The objection to this has already been answered at nom for ufc 149. Agent00f (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this link, when talking about secondary sources notability,: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS#Secondary_sources_for_notability It states, "AFDs require showing that topics meet the general notability guideline's requirement that secondary sources exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for run-of-the-mill events and breaking news. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted." It says right there, in plain English, that you must wait a couple of years before you can delete an article due to a lack of secondary sources. Just because the article is short right now and just because it lacks whatever sources you are looking for is NOT grounds for deleting it. It is grounds for IMPROVING it. Why would you keep going around putting things up for deletion instead of trying to IMPROVE them? Gamezero05 (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no indication that this will ever reach that standard. You are saying lets keep it on the off chance it becomes notable, like we do for all high school football players. Mt king ^(edits) 06:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't similar to high school football players. Irrelevant point. Gamezero 05 07:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is certainly a difference in having an article about an scheduled event that has not yet occured (Such as 2012 London Olympics, 2014 FIFA World Cup, UN Talks such as 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference or sporting events such as Super Bowl XLVII and so forth) and an article about an event that has not even been scheduled. For instance, an article about "UFC 214" would be ridiculous at this point just as much as an article about the 2096 Summer Olympics. However an article about UFC 150 is absolutely reasonable. -Loukinho (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not acceptedthat the individual events in this series are notable in most cases, even when they are held. To have an article about one that is not yet held is certainly unjustified. To compare this with the Olympics is the sort of comparison that when made, usually indicates to be the absurdly lesser degree of importance of the subject in question DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Buffalo Bills Radio Network. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Gaenzler[edit]

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

Non-notable local sports reporter. Ridernyc (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 00:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Buffalo Bills Radio Network. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flávio Teodósio de Coimbra[edit]

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

This person is an invention of some medieval monks forging charters to push back the dates of their land tenure. As a fiction, he is non-notable. His only coverage has been as 'just another name' in a pedigree published in pre-19th century Portuguese genealogy works that are not considered to be reliable by modern scholars. He is a made-up person atop a made-up pedigree in long-marginalized sources and hence does not meet notability or verifiability (in reliable sources) standards. Agricolae (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I can't confirm the nominator's statements, but neither can I find mention of an Iberian Flávio Teodósio in the course of a casual search of Google Books. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to amplify my original remarks, it was the Abbey of Lorvão that forged this material (note that all we supposedly know about his is how exalted a person he was, and that he made a donation to this abbey). As far as I am aware, there is not a single surviving authentic charter from this time period, and numerous modern Portuguese sources explicitly state that Hermenegildo Gutierrez was made the first Count of Coimbra in the late 9th century. He does appear in a few modern genealogical publications, but never as more than a bare name with title and dates in a lineage, not the kind of significant coverage that establishes Wikipedia notability. Effectively, he is like Banquo would be if The Bard hadn't put him into a play - as a historical non-entity, he doesn't bear mention, it is only as a character in The Scottish Play that he is notable, and Theodosio has no such play to elevate him. The whole invented descent only owes some cache to the desire of credulous 18th century Iberian (and particularly Portuguese, for whom there are nationalistic implications) genealogists to trace their collective history and that of their noble families through the historical vacuum that is the Muslim conquest to the ancient political structures of the Germanic and Celtic predecessors, the same motivation that gave rise to the fabulous Welsh pedigrees, only the Portuguese inventions did not reach the public until after the local framework of legends had already arisen in the form of such tales as the Miragaia, and so did not receive a validation provided to the Welsh material by the likes of Geoffrey of Monmouth. That leaves this individual as a historical non-entity who never became a notable of legend or literature, and only has received coverage as part of the longer pedigree, not for anything notable about him as an individual. Effectively, this is a 'one event' scenario, where that 'event' is a forged pedigree that is, itself, non-notable. The only other possible claim to notability, that he was Count of Coimbra, would not only violate the principle that notability is not inherited, but would ignore the fact that it is all made up anyhow. Agricolae (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have explained better: I don't doubt what you're saying at all, in fact it sounds to me like your analysis of this is probably correct. I only said "Weak" because I lack the expertise to investigate this well and don't have access to the sort of sources necessary to more closely investigate any of the related subjects; (as Maragm !voting below clearly does) hence, I'm just expressing that my !vote is involving more guesswork on my part than it usually does in other AfDs on more mainstream topics. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just for clarity sake, my only reason for responding to your comment was that it brought home, for exactly the reasons you explain, how AfDs for topics unknown to almost all English-language editors can be a challenge due to the lack of cultural context, so a little more detail and some analogies to (perhaps) more-familiar similar instances in British culture couldn't hurt. (And yes, Maragm knows her stuff, and I am not just saying this because she agrees with me.) Agricolae (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Not verifiable in any serious reliable source. --Maragm (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete': I can't find any reliable trace of him. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice Perhaps there are sources out there that would make him notable, but they would be rare and hard to track down. Delete per WP:V until such sources are found. Them From Space 21:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the references provided and Sulaiman's achievements do make him notable. Jenks24 (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Sulaiman[edit]

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

I got a spam e-mail from "Malik Sulaiman" and came across this article, which makes me wonder if spammers made it. Because seriously: a whole article about a "Malaysian yachtsman" with an unknown birth date? Con Rev Null (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What exactly are your reasons for deletion? Are you claiming this is a hoax? Because he seems to be real. He gets a lot of coverage in The Star (Malaysia), Malaysia's leading English-language newspaper[47][48][49][50], he's mentioned on the Olympic Council of Malaysia website[51], and there's other mentions online[52][53]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing Colapeninsula posted, and certainly nothing actually in this article, is particularly noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Con Rev Null (talk • contribs) 13:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close without prejudice for policy-based renomination - the nominator fails to advance any policy-based reason for deletion; "I wondered spammers might have wrote it" is not a reason to send an article to AfD, nor is missing information. It does appear that a valid case for deletion might be able to be made based on WP:SOLDIER and/or WP:NSPORT, but if so a valid AfD needs to be opened on that basis. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that "nominator fails to advance any policy-based reason for deletion". "Nothing actually in this article, is particularly noteworthy" seems to be a suggestion that the subject is not notable, which certainly is a policy-based reason for deletion. The nomination could have been expressed more clearly, but the way I read it was not that "I wondered spammers might have wrote it" was a reason for deletion, rather that it was just the prompt that led the nominator to look into the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as written does not establish notability. However, the links that Colapeninsula has provided certainly do so: he has received numerous mentions in the press, has been a team captain/manager in numerous competitions, including the SEA Games, and has been a silver medallist in the Asian Games. The article could do with substantial rewriting, but its subject is notable enough for an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. While it's likely that this article will be kept, I have to agree with JW that the nominator has offered a valid rationale for deletion even if it wasn't stated clearly so a few more comments would be helpful. As for his name being in email spam. I've received plenty of spam from "famous people". (that dude in Nigeria who wants help moving his money out of the country isn't one of them) I also have to wonder how common the name "Malik Sulaiman" is in his neck of the woods. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, personal problems with the article subject is not a cause for deletion. JIP | Talk 18:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put Your Hearts Up[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

second nom. Previous result was redirect. claims "itunes charts" which are not sufficient imo. only ref for US pop chart is artists own site. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect & Protect - Agreed with nom that chart positioning is insufficient reason for retention. No evidence of notability independent of the singer. The recreation of this article with a paltry few extra additional words after a definitive "delete" result is a piss-take. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at all.Phd8511 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demo 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No charting activity and lacks significant coverage from reliable sources, which indicates that this is a non-notable demo. Recreated for a third time (previously deleted under A1, then deleted via prod), time to do away with this once and for all. — ξ ^xplicit 00:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - Per nom, per previous PRODs, per the previous AFD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No sign of notability, searching on Google shows no indication of charting or indeed significant coverage in reliable sources of any sort. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Booth (priest)[edit]

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

Insufficient notability - the refs cited in the article are Crockford's, Who's Who (UK), The Times, and a church website. Archdeacons like David Booth are automatically included in Crockford's Clerical Directory, and are probably included by default in Who's Who (UK) - see WP:N/N#Are archdeacons inherently notable? for details. Two additional short mentions in The Times and supposedly on a church website (where I can't actually find him mentioned) do not amount to the "significant coverage" required by the GNG. Nor is he the subject of "multiple published secondary sources..." that would enable him to satisfy WP:BASIC. Apart from a few passing mentions of him setting up a schools' show-jumping championship and holding some services, I can't find anything else about him.

This is a test case - there are many other archdeacons in the same boat. Some of course do other things, like write profound books, or get made Bishops or Dean of Westminster etc., and thereby become more notable, but I contend that not all archdeacons - particularly not all Archdeacons of Lewes - meet our notability criteria. I wonder if "Delete and merge basic details to List of Archdeacons of Lewes" might be a suitable outcome for this article. —SMALL JIM 17:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth for a related case. —SMALL JIM 17:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. And to be honest, I have to question whether List of Archdeacons of Lewes meets GNG as well. I would agree that archdeacons (as a class) are not inherently notable. However do need to remember that individuals who happen to be archdeacons may well be notable. So these articles will need to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this is a test case, it's not a very good one, since Booth was also Honorary Chaplain to the Queen, and that is enough to presume notability. I'm surprised this was nominated, since it is obvious that the subject was included in Who's Who. St Anselm (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that this was actually a carefully selected test case, chosen because I think Booth doesn't quite reach the notability bar. John Plemth is the easy must-delete one, and see Edwin Ward which I rewrote and extended a bit because I think he does just clear the bar.

Regarding your further points: there's no WP guideline that says that being an Honorary Chaplain to the Queen presumes notability, so making an unsupported claim that it does won't carry any weight here - you'd need to give some reasons for that assertion. Similarly, you'd also need to explain why you think Booth's inclusion in Who's Who (UK) confers any notability instead of just ignoring an evidence-based argument that it does not. —SMALL JIM 14:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about where the onus lies reminded me to look over WP:BEFORE. You did see that Booth was awarded the OBE in 1944?[54] Charles Matthews (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though interestingly that book is apparently wrong and it was an MBE.[55] Charles Matthews (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - you pipped me to the correction! I hadn't seen that snippet, no, though it's not wrong: "Member of the Order of..." is the full name of the award. It is in his Who's Who entry. Our article confirms that it's the lowest order and states that "no more than ... 1464 Members may be appointed per year", so perhaps it's not too significant. —SMALL JIM 16:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the nominator makes some reasonable points. Including articles on Anglican archdeacons is not particularly harmful in a reference work, but I don't think they are all notable. The comment above about List of Archdeacons of Lewes is quite wrong, I believe. The Archdeaconry of Lewes is an administrative area, and such things have notability much more generally (traditionally archdeaconries were about the size of a county, though modern urban ones are on a different scale): i.e. Wikipedia's treatment of administrative areas and offices is much broader than of individuals who hold the office, quite rightly. As far as Booth is concerned, this one could be argued either way. I'm not seeing much to indicate notability beyond the administrative role. The chaplaincy is a decent indicator, but if someone says it is not quite enough, and it would be adequate to outline Booth on the list page, then that is also a reasonable argument. An obituary would help in deciding this one. By the way, lists of archdeacons have been standard reference material for nearly 300 years since Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae was published by John Le Neve, and there is no case at all for excluding them from Wikipedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at present. Having gone into Booth's life, I've come up with a few things: MBE (mentioned above), and related wartime career in the RNVR and out in Alexandria; established a youth centre which still exists in some form[56], influence on others[57]. And it turns out that he was always known as Peter. So there may be a bit more to find. For example he appeared on TV with Flora Robson.[58] In any case if asked the question "was he a notable churchman?" I find it hard to say no. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find, Charles. How unreasonable of this guy to have a secret alias! I'd have picked another test case if I'd spotted that. However, I don't think that the few extra refs that you've discovered add sufficient notability to raise him over the bar. The new Telegraph mention is clearly trivial, The Arbour isn't an independent source; and if 78rpm.co.uk can be trusted, he appeared in three TV programs (or maybe more) in the early '60s, only one of which was apparently deemed worthy of comment (in a religious newspaper). It still isn't "significant coverage" is it? —SMALL JIM 23:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this can be argued both ways. I'm now interested in the Stepney ministry post-war: there's probably more to say about the East End in the aftermath of the Blitz, and why he had so many curates. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of the inherent notability or otherwise of archdeacons, or the notability or otherwise of particular archdeacons, I am not at all happy about AFDing every article in Category:Anglican archdeacons. St Anselm (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be a proper procedure. There is {{Notability}} and the option of proposing some merges as transfer to a list (which could be reversed at a later stage without recourse to any process). Charles Matthews (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Both this AfD and the one for John Plemth would benefit from further informed opinions from uninvolved editors. —SMALL JIM 17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the MBE is a slam-dunk keep criterion, is it not? In any event, sources showing in the footnotes are clearly sufficient to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree that an MBE is a slam-dunk keep criteriion. A DBE/KBE certainly would be, and probably a CBE, but not an OBE or the lowest rank of the Order of the British Empire, an MBE. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite - the two MBEs that I've known are definitely not WP-worthy.^{(original research)} —SMALL JIM 00:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Honorary Chaplain to the Queen. -- 202.124.74.23 (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was already refuted without any counter-argument, above. Please explain why it makes him notable. —SMALL JIM 00:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't refuted, that I can see. -- 202.124.73.22 (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refuted? No. Booth thereby became a member of the Royal Household, as noted in the London Gazette in 1957. The presumption that he was notable to have been considered for the post is reasonable. It is fair to say the argument is not decisive. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting a gloss on 202's bald statement there, Charles. If what he really meant is that after considering all the coverage in reliable sources he was finally swayed by the QHC appointment, then that's a reasonable argument. But what he actually said is the same as User:StAnselm did above: that simply being a QHC is sufficient grounds to keep the article. I had already pointed out that without giving any reasons such a statement is no use at an AfD. I was, in fact, giving them a chance to make a better argument.

Please don't get the impression that I'm a rampant deletionist. I don't think our opinions of notability are actually very far apart - you'll have seen what I did at Edwin Ward, for instance. I put these two cases up for AfD to get some clarity on the notability of archdeacons after the shortage of comment at WP:N/N#Archdeacons, and I was expecting a discussion about the pros and cons of Who's Who and Crockford's etc. as sources. Maybe I was unlucky in my choice of subjects, but the central issue is still there - if archdeacons are not inherently notable, what are we going to do about all those stubs? —SMALL JIM 17:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind WP:FAILN, in particular "articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort", one has to ask what other resorts there are. For medieval churchmen, I'd ask User:Ealdgyth for a rule of thumb. For the period 1500 to 1700 CofE appointments were much sought after and significant, and the non-notable archdeacons are there, but fairly recognisable as churchmen stuck in a provincial backwater rather than upwardly mobile. From about 1714 to the present, we have the situation that archdeacons are probably going to be well enough documented as people, but less significant in the general scheme of things. I would generally look for coverage in academic works as a positive indicator. Archdeacon Grantly, it might be fair to say, wouldn't be notable, at least as far as Trollope describes him. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info which I'll digest. I must admit, though, that I'd find it easier to estimate the notability of Archdeacon Henry Blunt than that of Grantly. —SMALL JIM 23:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable is asserted and coverage in sources meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of his roles or titles make him inherently notable, but the coverage and sourcing just puts him over the line. Them From Space 21:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current references seem adequate to pass the GNG, and FN1 (the Times one) may be an obituary. It may have even more information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ought to mention that although my UK library subscription to NewsBank apparently includes the Times for that date, I've been unable to find anything on Booth in that issue, nor is there an obit in any paper included in NewsBank. By the way I'm pretty certain that refs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 (in the current version) don't contribute anything to notability, so I hope you weren't including them. The report of the TV appearance does add a little, though (see above - not in the article). —SMALL JIM 11:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Plemth[edit]

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

No notability at all. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest) for a related case. —SMALL JIM 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Stub article with no likelihood of expansion... nor sources upon which to build an proper article. Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - known by other names. It is interesting that his will survives.[59] I don't have £3.50 to go and read it, really. On the other hand as John Plente it is easier to find out more about him.[60] With the clue that he was a Cambridge man, I found the Venn database entry. So I think this discussion could do with being a bit less superficial. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can be expanded, has been expanded, and no doubt will be further expanded. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No significant expansion has taken place: is this because there is no notability-enhancing content that can be added? Both this AfD and the one for David Booth (priest) would benefit from further informed opinions from uninvolved editors. —SMALL JIM 17:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We could mention he's in Fasti Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, to which detractors would say, "oh, that's just incidental." Here's the question: "Is Wikipedia better off with or without this article?" That seems clear. Now, let's take a look at all the links that are gonna go red if this historical stub is deleted: [61]. In what possible alternative universe is that a benefit to the encyclopedia??? So let's go straight to the biggest Policy in the playbook: WP:IGNOREALLRULES — "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Confirmed existence, factually accurate, valid claim to notability, useful content, that's all we should really worry about. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of a post-holder, such as an archdeacon, in any complete list or directory such as Fasti, Crockford's or the Chichester Diocese Clergy Lists (cited in the article) cannot show that post-holder's notability unless there is consensus that the post confers inherent notability - see the Booth AfD and this N/N discussion for more on this (comments welcome). Exactly the same argument applies to Venn, the other cited reference in the article, which lists all Cambridge alumni. Now it is certainly true that if these lists also give biographical information, they may provide useful pointers to other sources that may help show notability, but in this case there's nothing significant indicated - the only snippet taken up by other sources seems to be his bequest to Cambridge, and that certainly isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO.

Regarding the redlink problem, I think I'm right in saying that all 54 linked articles are only there because of the Template:Archdeacons of Lewes. Remove him from that and all the supposed redlinks would disappear. In fact the article is an orphan, which is not surprising since there is so little to say about him. I don't see any reason to invoke IAR here: a line or two in Archdeacon of Lewes would do the job better. —SMALL JIM 23:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the historical material found by Charles Matthews, and references in a number of other books. WP:N is more than satisfied, and the nominator should have done a better WP:BEFORE check. -- 202.124.73.119 (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to Carrite above refutes this point, I think. If you know of further independent reliable sources, please add them to the article. —SMALL JIM 23:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is becoming clearer that you are not too fair-minded about this. This person passes sensible criteria for notability as applied to 15th-century people. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're certainly an expert at sewing together an article out of very thin fabric! But it's a shame that all those refs are trivial mentions without any of the significant coverage needed to satisfy the GNG. —SMALL JIM 10:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nutshell for WP:GNG runs like this: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". I think, in making backhanded compliments, you should ask yourself whether you are doing so within the spirit of the guideline you cite. Calling the refs in the article "trivial mentions" does not actually make them so, you know. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh - you've forced me to list and evaluate them now... As numbered in this version of the article:

Chichester Diocese Clergy Lists, and
Venn. As complete lists, these confer no notability.
Lepine (1995) p. 171: "The Chichester residentiary John Plente (d.1483) founded a chantry at King's College Cambridge, where he had been bursar, with an endowment of £100." The shortest of three examples of educational patronage, in a book of 240 pages about English Secular Cathedrals in the Later Middle Ages. A trivial mention.
Cooper (1860) p. 212: "...John Plente, fellow in 1484..." One of the shortest entries in a list of about 50 benefactors, in a 403-page volume about the Cambridge Colleges. Trivial. (Better ref - yours is a modern reproduction.)
Fuller (1840) p. 152: "John Plentith, fellow, gave one hundred and sixty marks." One brief entry in a table of benefactors, in a book of over 300 pages on the early history of Cambridge University. Trivial.
Collecteana (1751) p. 130: "Here also lies buried Master John Plente, formerly fellow of this college, who in 1484, by Indenture [...] he gave the College 160 Marks, and his name was to be enter'd in their bead-roll, and he was to be annually commemrated among the Benefactors." Half a page, mostly reciting conditions, in a description of the monuments and burials in King's College Chapel. (Note that he doesn't have a monument there.) Barely more than trivial and very old and of suspect accuracy.
Sussex Archaeological Collections (1948) p. 66: The will of Sir John Atkyns: "To William Atkyns a silver-gilt cup with a figure of St George on the cover, left me by Mr John Plente" and "The priest who celebrates for me for five years is to do so in the Subdeanery, and is to pray for my father and mother, my brother, Sir William Lucy, and Mr John Plente; these names to be written in a list and put on the altar lest they be forgotten." Two trivial mentions in someone's will. A primary source too.
Mursell (2001) p. 200: a copy of part of the above will, omitting the first mention. Used as an example of the spirit of the time. Trivial.

You must think that's enough to satisfy WP:N, but with respect for your experience in this field, I have to disagree. —SMALL JIM 23:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have always thought "notability" as used here is a broken concept. It is a placeholder for having a proper topic policy. The advent of the GNG has actually made the situation worse, rather than better. The whole prosecuting counsel thing you are doing with that "Barely more than trivial and very old and of suspect accuracy" thing is designed, apparently, to save face for the idea that this person has no notability at all. I don't know why you think that source is of suspect accuracy: some old antiquarian works are more accurate in transcribing than others, but there is plenty of correlation. What you say about the nature of the Venn database is true (it is a comprehensive listing) but the actual content of the entry is not to be discounted as you do. If we go back to basics and say "was John Plente a notable churchman of his time?" the answer is yes, as far as I can see. If the GNG gives the wrong answer, so much the worse for it. It is only a sub-guideline of a guideline, not official policy, and there is a very good reason for that. Anything drafted to cover reality show stars and historical figures from 500 years ago by universal criteria is a stretch: can't be otherwise. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll deal with a couple of the points you raise there in a while, Charles, but I want to emphasise that this was put up as a test case, and if it's kept it would seem to leave the way open for the indiscriminate creation of low-quality stubs to continue. There are plenty of senior clergy (archdeacons, deans etc.) who don't have articles here yet, despite Bashereyre's prolific attempts to fill the gap. It is, I suppose, just possible that WP is best served by having numerous short articles on clergy of undetermined notability, instead of the probably preferable option of them appearing with brief details in lists. WP is certainly not best served, though, if those articles are plagued by inaccuracies: I came across a number of problems while fixing faulty ISBNs (see my discussion with Bashereyre here), the robust comment made by Anglicanus yesterday at N/N makes some relevant points, and DBD has also expressed concerns, here for example. Anyway whatever the outcome of this AfD may be, in view of the opposition here I don't think it would be expedient for me to pursue this further. Perhaps those with some influence and an enduring interest in these topics could try to persuade any editors who create such articles to be more discerning and accurate. And maybe start some sort of clean-up campaign. —SMALL JIM 13:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your last comment, I said that Collecteana is of suspect accuracy because I understood you to be indicating as much by your bracketed comment in the article (was he buried in King's or at Exeter?); perhaps I misinterpreted what you wrote there, but it does seem uncertain. The "very old" comment was an incomplete argument, sorry: it was intended to remark on the fact that much of the content of that item does not appear to have been considered worthy of further comment in 250 years. Regarding Venn (and similar "complete" lists), we absolutely have to show notability by using other sources before we can use its content to create articles; if we did not do so we would be setting it up as a provider of inherent notability. Finally: "was John Plente a notable churchman of his time?" - the question of whether or not he would he have appeared in a late 15th-century Wikipedia is, sadly, unknowable... —SMALL JIM 14:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This sort of material is to be encouraged, we're already undercovering medeival folk in relation to contemporary folk. Also, the chance of Charles, the most traditionalist wikipedian here creating something not appropriate for wiki is slim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: To be clear, the article was created by User:Bashereyre and in its original form might well have been suitable for deletion. But given the half-a-dozen name variants, this isn't at all a clear deletion once researched. I think Henry VIII and Edward VI may well have agreed that chantry bequests were "trivial"; but I don't see it that way. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Boone[edit]

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

Only two minor articles in Reliable Sources. To me they fall short of establishing notability. Ridernyc (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please read WP:NRVE: Topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and not whether or not sources are present in articles. See also WP:IMPERFECT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close - Per WP:NRVE, ..."The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." This topic easily passes WP:GNG, and sources are readily available. Boone has received extensive coverage in numerous reliable sources, including: The New York Times [62], The New York Post [63], New York Daily News [64], New York Daily News [65], Courier Magazine [66], Metro New York [67]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those were all in the article when I checked and I do not consider them extensive coverage. I'm also not sure how reliable a source the Courier Magazine is. Two fluff piece in NYC newspapers is not a slam dunk on the GNG in my eyes. Ridernyc (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the newspaper articles are quite extensive. Also, my !vote above has five articles from New York Newspapers, not two, and four of them are comprised of significant coverage. Did you even read the above !vote or read the articles presented? Doesn't seem to be the case. Why is this? Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion they are quite extensive, in my opinion they are metro section section fluff pieces and a few of them. Your continued total lack to assume good faith and make accusations about me is out of place here. Stop attacking me and discuss the sources.Ridernyc (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never state personal "attacks", not ever. Your comment stated that there were two articles in NYC newspapers in this discussion, which was in error. It wasn't an "accusation", it's an error. There are five NYC newspapers cited in my !vote above. Perhaps defining what you consider to be a "fluff piece" would help to clarify your stance. Per your comment above, how does an article being within a metro section of a newspaper reduce topic notability, (if that's what is being implied)? Also, what do you consider to be "extensive coverage"? Is this based on word count, number of paragraphs, etc.? I apologize if your were in any manner offended, because this wasn't the intention. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These four articles (cited above in my !vote) constitute significant coverage of the topic per WP:GNG, which defines significant coverage as: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Sources:

New York Daily News [68]
The New York Times [69]
The New York Post [70]
New York Daily News [71]

These are all extensive articles that are all entirely about Kurt Boone.

This article is shorter: Metro New York [72], but is entirely about Boone. Hope this helps to clarify matters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A summary of works authored by Kurt Boone:

"Looking For Myself" Poetry by Kurt Boone (1996) ISBN 0-8059-3570-3
"Inside Grand Central Terminal" A Photo Essay by Kurt Boone (2006) ISBN 978-0-9789946-0-0
"Urban Theory: Critical Thoughts In America" by Kurt Boone & Noreen Mallory (2007) ISBN 978-1-6048-1214-5
"On The Subway" Poetry by Kurt Boone (2008) ISBN 978-1-934690-00-0
"Messenger Poet" by Kurt Boone and illustration by Greg Ugalde (2009) ISBN 978-1-934690-23-9
"Asphalt Warrior: The Story of New York City's Fastest Messenger" by Kurt Boone (2011) ISBN 978-1-934690-29-1^[1]

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do works by the author have to do with notability. And why is one of the New York Post articles listed by you as a work by the author? Agian assume good faith in others, people can look at sources and decide on their own without you dictating what is significant coverage in your opinion. Ridernyc (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment above to "discuss the sources", that's what's been done. Also, NY Post articles don't have ISBN numbers. Happy editing, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the coverage in multiple newspapers is just about sufficient for WP:GNG, although I'm concerned that his books aren't really reviewed anywhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources above are good enough for me, but would be best worked into the article. Local celebrities can still be notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Ivanovic[edit]

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

Individual band member of a band Voltera. The band itself's page has very little, and this individual member doesn't meet the notability criteria for individual (classic line in notability for bands: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article.).

I initially redirected but the original creator reverted back without comment. Shadowjams (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band page and that is a bit generous, and the band's page is arguably ripe for AFD as well. Some talk page work on the issue might be in order if needed, which I have begun. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ya I agree... I originally did that, but the creator reverted it. And yeah, the band's page probably should be the one nominated. As far as I can tell (at the time I nominated) this was the only band member page created. Shadowjams (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. He is not a member of the Voltera here, just another Voltera he hijacked the page with. That other band would be a valid candidate for speedy A7 deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. The WP entry for Voltera is for an older, unrelated Aussie band. For this person, I found no independent coverage at all, just this WP page and its mirrors, a couple of Youtube videos with 200+ listens each, and a couple of other user-contributed entries elsewhere. Hardly shocking for a 15-year-old drummer. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. The article was deleted on 11:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC) under G7 speedy deletion criteria, by User:Olaf Davis. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, Meet You In Heaven[edit]

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

Article about a webnovel. I can not find any sources that discuss it. The only source on the article is the authors website, not third party sources. It is mostly a plot summary. GB fan 00:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline advert without sourcing and no actual claim of notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable in-depth sources. Seems to be written for promotional purposes. Exeva (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Wattpad story? Yet another example of why we need a CSD criteria for this sort of drivel. Fails WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG, WP:NWEB, etc. etc.... Yunshui 雲‍水 07:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero notability, only 9 hits in google, all of which are the wattpad site or this AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely not notable. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please. Articles of this sort need a CSD criterion... Clearly not notable per WP:NBOOK. →B music ian 12:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty much devoid of actual content. JIP | Talk 18:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That was after the article creator decided to remove the plot summary constituting almost the entire article. Either way, I think the article should be deleted. JIP | Talk 18:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not notable, as per WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 23:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Koplowitz, Howard (31 March 2011). "Cambria Hts. author delivers his message". New York Post. Retrieved 14 November 2011.

[1] Koplowitz, Howard (31 March 2011). "Cambria Hts. author delivers his message". New York Post. Retrieved 14 November 2011.

[1]