Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 November	26 November >

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 delete. I would strongly advise against transwikiing anything that is not already in the Wikitionary entry, it is unlikely to comply with their CFI. Spinning Spark 17:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note : The existing Wiktionary entry can be found here. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As cool as a cucumber[edit]

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

Non-notable idiom. Origin blatantly hoax, but not quite enough to qualify for CSD I think. Creator removed a PROD already. ⁓ Hello 71 22:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that this simile is found at Wiktionary. No reason to retain it here. Safiel (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary (or a collection of etymologies). Why is a Russian book by "Shitova" cited? Hmmm, no idea. Urban Dictionary is thattaway.-----> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrite (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wictionary is the right place for definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if there's anything useful at this article not already over at the Wiktionary page. Otherwise, delete. Though as an aside, I don't believe this is a hoax; I've heard it many times throughout my life. Go Phightins! 03:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - this is a well known phrase in British English, but if you really want a source,this book is one. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a real phrase; I stated that "the origin appears to be a hoax". ⁓ Hello 71 21:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the urban dictionary. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki; it's not a hoax but at the same time not encyclopedic. dci | TALK 07:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Paige Bentley[edit]

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

Promotional bio for ex-model turned movie director whose band article was recently AFDed. The only ghits I can find are listings of the 'City of Motherly Love' film, with no reliable third-party reviews, which would fail WP:NFILMS. The rest are self-generated content, including press releases mirrored in local news station websites. The notability for her, her work or her production company just isn't there, whether we look at basic WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog 22:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puff piece, failsWP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of popular success or notability, mostly self-promotion as stands and would become empty of contents without self- or near self-citations.

Delete Although she has appeared on MTV and other ventures, her success or notability is not showcased. I am leaning to believe that this accomplishments are merely occasional and with no impact in time, which is somewhat needed to meet WP:BIO. Additionally, seems that we have only situational coverage of her actions as part of a major report, meaning that she's not the main point of discussion in the sources placed on the article, and those that could have been found. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Theo polisme 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration[edit]

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

This list is a split from Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration. The splitter has not started a discussion on the split, as required by WP:SPLIT. The split is certainly not justified on size (the original article is under 6K, this is under 2.5K, and size splitting doesn't take place until 40K). The list does not overburden the original article (especially if formatted correctly, without a list of non-existant pictures). To discussants and the closer, please note that even though this is an AfD, the burden is actually reversed--Ahnoneemoos needs to justify the existence of this as a standalone article, with a no consensus result requiring a return to the original state (no split). Really, an AfD should never have been required, had Ahnoneemoos attempted to establish consensus in the first place. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Keep as a standalone article. I beleive that it's better if we have a clean and concise list on the main article with a separated and detailed list on this List. The Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration is similar to a foreign affairs ministry and it's important to detail its Directors, but not on its main article. The main article already has a clean and concise list of its former Directors while this article has a detailed view. This is acceptable on Wikipedia and is not a violation of any rules.

In addition, WP:BEBOLD, WP:IAR, and WP:NOTABUREAUCRACY doesn't require a discussion to take place to split the article. I was WP:BOLD, split the article on its own, and tagged it with the proper cleanup templates while leaving concise and susbstantial information on the main article. I will take responsibility and give my compromise to edit and clean the List as time goes by. Just because it doesn't have pictures today it doesn't mean that it won't have them tomorrow. I'm not an employee of Wikipedia and can't be on it 24/7 but it's obvious if you see the list of articles that I have created and edited that I will eventually contribute to it to bring it up to standard. I also understand that I don't WP:OWN and that this is not my article, but this is simply a normal thing to do on articles that have long tables that deviate from the main subject.

Furthermore, this is just a WP:WITCHHUNT on User:Qwyrxian as you can see on my talk page. This is not about what's better for Wikipedia, it's all about WP:WINNING and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. I have clearly offered a solution that can satisfy both point of views but User:Qwyrxian still wants to delete it. He is being intransigent.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold is fine. When you are reverted after being bold, you must engage in a discussion on the matter. WP:BRD is probably the most widely accepted essay on the site, and is generally held to be equivalent to a guideline at least. Had you simply opened up the discussion required by WP:SPLIT, I never would have taken the steps I did, and would have trusted whatever consensus resulted. You chose to forge your own path, thus I had to use a more drastic means to remedy to your refusal to start a discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the problem, you did not revert my edit: you simply speedy deleted it unilaterally even after I contested its deletion. You just can't speedy delete something as an Administrator when it's contested. Remember, as an editor WP:IAR and WP:BEBOLD cover your ass, but as an Administrator things are different because you actually have the power to delete something. I advise you to re-read what you just wrote and WP:CALM. If you notice you are doing this simply becuase of WP:BUREAUCRACY. Your goal is not doing what is best for Wikipedia, your goal right now is: "DUE PROCESS WAS NOT FOLLOWED OHMAHGAWD MUST DELETE". Wikipedia is flexible and WP:IAR stands above all. This is not a malicious edit, it's actually quite benefitial, but you are so caught up in WP:DISRUPTPOINT and WP:BUREAUCRACY that you want to vanish all evil that doesn't follow what you believe to be due process. You need to remember that WP:NOTPAPER and splitting articles is OK as long as you leave substantial information on the main article. That's exactly what I did. I have provided you with a fantastic solution that satisifies both your concerns and mine, but you are still focused on your crusade for due process, WP:NOTABUREAUCRACY bro. Seriously man, WP:CALM, WP:LETITGO, and have a blunt and you will realize how petty this is. We could be spending all this time and effort on creating new articles. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States subject to the plenary powers of Congres. About 25% of Puerto Rico's budget comes from subsidies from the federal government of the United States ($1 out of every $4 dollars!!). Because of this, the government of Puerto Rico created the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration and established its Director to lead it. This office is critical for Puerto Rico as it serves and the primary liaison between Puerto Rico and the United States. Naturally, the Director of this office is extremely important to Puerto Rico and its people.

Task: we need to detail the Directors information and include: Ordinality, Picture, Name, Date they took office, Date they left office, Political party, and Affiliation.

Problem: if we detail all that on the main article then visually the article becomes more about its Director than about the office since the table would be extremely long.

Solution: keep concise and clean details of the Directors on the main article and split the details into its own article.

This is what this edit did. Unfortunately, as you can see, User:Qwyrxian deleted it even when the speedy delete was contested.

Hope this helps.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a reasonable list. Work in progress. Nomination without merit. WP:SPLIT does not "require" anything. It is a guideline, and it merely "recommends". - Altenmann >t 12:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement to stage a discussion prior to splitting a section from an article. I also disagree that there's any kind of burdenshifting applicable here; if anything, AFDs should be harder when you are trying to delete split content because the normal solution, if one is needed, is simply to merge back and redirect. A no consensus result would just throw this back to normal discussion and editing to hash out; it would not in any way prevent editors from keeping this split off. Here a split based on size issues is reasonable given the length of the formatted table, and the same as has been done for other articles on government offices. So keep. postdlf (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a list of people who have held a significant governmental role. I expect that the remaining entries will also be found to be notable. Both this and the page it was split from having sourcing issues, but googling suggests that sources exist. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Theo polisme 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of most watched YouTube videos[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic and unmaintainable trivia. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the creator of the article, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote "keep", but anyway: Wikipedia has "unencyclopedic trivia" such as List of most watched television broadcasts, List of most watched sporting events in 2004 and List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". See also Category:Superlatives. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your question... yes, you are most certainly allowed to indicate your preference to Keep. (We don't actually "vote" on Wikipedia; we build consensus. See also WP:!VOTE.) --76.189.101.221 (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well... the only problem is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really a way to argue for inclusion because sometimes people show articles that aren't notable or are sourced properly, etc. You can state that there is precedence with lists that collect data such as "most viewed ____", but it also comes down to you being able to show that it passes WP:NLIST. I do think that there is potential for an article of this sort since many of the videos listed here are ones that have been recorded for having notable amounts of YT viewings, but it's also a list that would potentially be dynamic in that it could change frequently and would need someone to monitor this. Of course things changing rapidly isn't always a reason to delete. In any case, I recommend sourcing each of the videos with a source independent of the video or YT channel, etc. As can be seen in the case of Rebecca Black's Friday, sometimes people take their videos down and the hits are almost always reset when/if they are uploaded again, so it's good to have an outside RS that observes the amount of viewings.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand what you are saying, but there is a fair amount of coverage of this phenomenon right now; YouTube has a new "most watched video", and it is receiving plenty of coverage (go to Google News and type in "most watched youtube"). Toccata quarta (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which is why it's so incredibly important to source the article, which is sort of the point I was trying to get across. A list of this nature can be notable, but it's a good idea to source it with RS that discuss the amount of YT views. That way you can easily show the notability for each one. I've linked to each article, but it'd be a good idea to source each one. All it'd take is one source for each one, I think.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems to be it would be more useful (and much easier) to recast the article as something more along the lines of List of YouTube videos with more than 500 million hits. Something like that ... Faustus37 (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I completely disagree with the nominating edtior who said the article is "Unencyclopedic and unmaintainable trivia". IMO, it is most certainly encyclopedic, easily maintainable, and not trivial at all. YouTube is an Internet icon, and arguably a cultural icon. Why is this article any different than, let's say, this great one: List of best-selling music artists, which has sections based on number of sales? Both are undoubtably notable and very important in their genres. What would disqualify this article that does not disqualify the music artists one? Or hundreds of other similar Lists on Wikipedia? This YouTube list is easily sourced via YouTube Charts and is the online equivalent to the music artists list when it comes to video sites. Unless someone can point to a specific guideline that clearly disqualifies this list, it should stay. I think it's great and, frankly, I'm shocked it wasn't created a long time ago. Btw, the article title should definitely be changed to "List of most viewed YouTube videos", not "watched". YouTube stats are based on views, not watches. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC) 23:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is. It's just taken from a YouTube chart that's always going to be changing and will never be adequately sourced (for example, the Gangname Style is already 2 million more than what's posted). However, the phenomena is real as the Gangnam Style video proves, so it needs more of a cultural impact slant. There's better ways to present this, not just numbers. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, but perhaps move page name to address cultural impact and surrounding phenomenon, which is easily confirmed and discussed in literally numerous secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My impetus for creating this list was the article Social impact of YouTube, where documentation of the "most watched YouTube video" phenomenon has been taking place recently. Would you therefore propose merging? Toccata quarta (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, YouTube videos are "viewed", not "watched". The title needs corrected. ;) --76.189.101.221 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with reservations and proposed modifications. I had hoped to find an encyclopedic article that would show the history of #1 videos on YouTube, but nothing like that exists. As new #1 videos often get at least cursory news coverage, that should be something able to be recreated and maintained into the future, and address notability. As is this is just a recapitulation of a list that at best makes the information easier to find (YouTube themselves actually don't make it super obvious), constantly changing. But list of historical #1s would be similar to other music lists and lists such as successor holders of a tallest building title. --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest adding more columns (rank, title, artist, language, year released, views) and making them sortable. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Marczuk[edit]

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

1. It's an orphan article, 2. It's a resume, 3. She is not notable to have her article in Polish Wikipedia, 4. She wrote it herself, 5. She lacks notability for this Wikipedia Ptok Bentoniczny PS: If you google her, you get a lot of articles in Polish but some of them are about other Karinas Marczuks - e.g. a gynecologist Karina Marczuk...(talk) 19:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really notable. I did notify Yeann (the article writer) about this discussion. –BuickCentury Driver 20:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She served in a national-level position in the Polish government. ~~Additionally, she has a peer-reviewed publication in a Polish journal; Google Translate suggests that it's a journal about international relations/security studies.~~ Lord Roem (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I offer no opinion about any other claims of notability, but must point out that having had a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal is nowhere near passing WP:PROF, or any other notability guideline. That requires having many papers published with many hundreds of citations to them. Pretty well anyone with a PhD has had a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're right. Nevertheless, I still believe she meets WP:POLITICIAN because of her high posting in the Polish government. Lord Roem (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fail to see how she meets WP:POLITICIAN. If I read this correctly, she was a deputy director within a department of the National Security Bureau (Poland). So what I get is that she was a civil servant. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:POLITICIAN based on the current sources. I can't read polish so there may be other sources out there, if such references are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If my readings are right, and per WP:POLITICIAN, she hasn't held a "national or sub-national" office. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artem Khachaturov[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Moldovan First Division is fully pro, a claim not supported by reliable sources at WP:FPL or elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - may also want to consider an alternative spelling Artiom Haceaturov - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL per his UEFA pages, etc [1]. Cloudz 679 19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject fails WP:GNG as he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cloudz 679 05:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 18:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arayan[edit]

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

Apart from the pure article quality the text leads me to believe that this is a copyright violation. I am simply unable to find from where the original material comes. It shows all the symptoms of a scraped or copied article, but it has ben duplicated in so many WP unofficial mirrors that I cannot see the wood form the trees Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate withdrawal My fault. I should have checked revision history. I have now reverted the article to a decent point from where it can be built upon and prior to the suspected copyvio. We all make mistakes. This was one of mine. Just not sure how to close this. Sorry chaps. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of weddings on Days of our Lives[edit]

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

Article lacks sources and WP:Notability. All content can be explained on individual character and series articles. Mainly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Similar pages have been redirected, see List of weddings on The Bold and the Beautiful. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce from Wikipedia per nom. Insignificant in-universe fancruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's impossible to WP:verify notability of this topic. I'm sure that each of the weddings have some passing notability in soap opera digest, but not the kind of notability required for Wikipedia, because we're WP:NOTNEWS, let alone soap opera digest. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Family "drama" is the basic plot of the series, but no single event or list of events deserves its own list. A fan page may be the place for this; not WP. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't an encyclopedia article. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What? — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 17:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark sweet[edit]

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

Claims notbaility but unable to find a lot of background for this person. nom for deletion as failing WP:GNG if claims of tv coverage can be found would meet but can't find them. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hit save too early--not a Wikipedia expert by any means! Have since updated with sources. User:Melancie —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also unsure as to why his last name is not capitalized & why I can't edit this. Thank you & sorry for the newbie Q's! User:Melancie comment added 21:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was surprised by not being able to find any kind of significant coverage on the subject. The article claims he was featured in the NYT and Chicago Tribune, but nothing is showing up in the NYT, and there's only a brief mention of a performance in the Tribune. Other news results are the same: they're in reliable sources, but they're simply listings of performance times. I can't find a single review of a performance in a reliable source. He appeared on the Jimmy Fallon show, but I also don't see any coverage of this performance. I don't think we're up to the WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE or other specific standards here unless someone can unearth evidence of more significant coverage than I was able to find. --Batard0 (talk) 13:40, 26 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider deleting! Mark is employed as a warm-up comedian & performs a comedy hypnotism show at different locations. His warm-up contributions and experience are noted on pages 11, 188 & 189 by Warren Littlefield in his 2012 book "Top of the Rock" because Mark has done warm-up on so many legendary sitcoms over the past 30+ years. His comedy shows are not reviewed by the press--most stand-up shows are not. I'm currently working on creating a YouTube channel for him (I do freelance work for Mark), which will have multiple clips of his appearances mentioned in the article. If the article is deleted before I can finish the channel (this requires converting multiple VHS tapes & editing them as well as ripping DVDs & editing them), I will re-upload the Mark Sweet page once the multiple videos are up & use them as citation references. Mark is notable in that he's one of the most utilized warm-up comedians in sitcom history, but because he's a behind-the-scenes type of guy, he does not have regular "coverage" of these contributions. However, I hope to keep Mark's article on Wikipedia because of his unique position in the sitcom world and history. Melancie (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Does not meet the requirement of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I'm afraid the videos proposed by Melancie above are useless for establishing notability, and the book references do not represent substantial coverage. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please reconsider deleting:Added videos on YouTube & references to them, videos such as Mark Sweet as Willy Wonka, Mark performing on The Merv Griffin Show, a profile of him on E!, and many others.Melancie (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Melancie, but none of the sources in the article qualifies as substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources according to our policies. It's basically original research. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable that fails WP:GNG, per the above also. Sorry. TBr and ley 00:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer There appears to have been an error in relisting on October 27 that led to the discussion not appearing in any deletion log. I am adding it to today's log, please consider the failed relisting when considering a close. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The thing is, a person can appear on shows or whatnot but that doesn't mean that those appearances or roles were overwhelmingly notable. It's fairly difficult to show notability for entertainers because there are a lot of people who will be brought in to shows (notable or otherwise) to kill time until the person everyone really came to see is brought in. It doesn't mean that the comedian isn't good or that they didn't work hard, just that these sort of things are rarely noted in news articles or made the focus of news articles or shows. The Jimmy Fallon appearance is good, but there's little other coverage out there for him. He hasn't really been the focus of in-depth news articles or other RS, he doesn't have a fan following that is so overwhelmingly large/unique that he'd get notability for that, and he isn't considered to have made any contributions that would be considered to pass part three of WP:ENTERTAINER. In all fairness, part two and three are incredibly hard to pass without first passing part one in some way and all must have some form of coverage/reliable sourcing to back any of them up. This coverage just doesn't seem to be out there. I see trivial mentions here and there, but no in-depth coverage. The mention in Top of the Rock is pretty much a brief mention. It does state that he's done a lot of show warmups but I imagine that the number is probably standard for warmup comedians. The coverage just isn't out there right now. I don't have any problem with this being userfied to Melancie's userspace, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - This man certainly has potential but nothing suitable for Wikipedia yet, Google News provided mostly event listings here and continues at the second page with one result, this one (another event listing). As shown above, Tokyogirl79 has provided one Google Books result and I found two more here and here (both minor mentions). If he achieves more appearances possibly even reviews, that would be a start. SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I've told Mark to start reaching out to newspapers, shows, other sources to gain publicity since that's his goal. If this article is deleted & he gains further notability/sources to identify his notability, I'll relist it with this info. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Melancie (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freeper[edit]

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

Considering that this seems like something that some ten year old RuneScaper invented when they were bored, and the only use of the word seems to be in various acts of vandalism I propose deletion. Somehow this page has survived since 2004 without being noticed. --Tikuko 09:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting because it looks like this AfD was not properly completed. LadyofShalott 15:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism, esp. with this meaning. LadyofShalott 16:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. After deletion, consider redirecting to Free Republic, as the participants in that web site are known as "Freepers". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". ypnypn (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the urban dictionary. I have a feeling that someone is literally going through the urban dictionary and creating wikipedia pages to boost their creation count. I wish there was a speedy delete tag that we could use for these. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it was WP:MADEUP one day "by Michael Sawyer of Austin, Texas." Cnilep (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NNN fails WP:GNG. I also support the Free Republic redirect mentioned above. czar · · 03:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep under WP:SK Criteria 1. (NAC) Monty ₈₄₅ 15:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johan C. Schwarz-Nielsen[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be any arguments as to why this article should be deleted! So I vote for keeping it.

The original article has now been approved on the Dansih Wikipedia, amongst otehr reasons as it has been documentet that Schwarz-Nielsen was Chairman of Bærnehjælpsdagen, a country-wide NGO/Chareity.Jens sn (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not about time the deletion template was removed? The similar discussion on the Dansih Wikipedia is long since completed with the conclussion that Schwarz-Nilesen is eligeble for a Wikipedia entry. Jens sn (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added the standard deletion templates to the discussion. I've also refactored the above comments to thread them. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 25. Snotbot t • c » 15:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Andrés Coloma[edit]

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

no information other then they were a noble Redsky89 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The grounds for nomination are worthless, seeing that, although neither of the references currently given really seems usable (one is a dead link, the other seems only to mention him in passing), there is an interwiki link to a distinctly more detailed Spanish Wikipedia article. But, while it would probably help if someone with better Spanish than mine looked at it, the Spanish Wikipedia article mostly seems to be saying that he was a noble who inherited a lot of property through various routes and got into disputes about it, and it has precisely the same references as this article. And the various Google searches seem to provide quite a number of passing mentions but nothing more. Basically, unless more sources turn up, I doubt that he meets WP:GNG though given his rank, he might meet some other guideline. PWilkinson (talk) 22:56, 25 October 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, SarahStierch (talk) 05:23, 29 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 05:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable --Shorthate (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, with support for a merge if there's a suitable target. Most hits are very passing mentions, but this has a bit of useful content, and also this one, although it is a primary record. Other than that, the snippets suggest that these [2] [3] [4] could also hold more than a trivial mention. While it's true that we expect coverage to be more significant, given the large presence in historical literature I just don't feel comfortable dismissing the subject right away. Regarding a merge, there's an article on the Countship of Elda on es:WP, but no equivalent here. Actually, it would appear that it is customary on en:WP to redirect "Countship of" to the location's article, so the target could be a new History section at Elda. In any case, there's enough out there that we can be certain the title shouldn't be a red link — Frankie (talk) 15:46, 12 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer The above relisting seems to have failed. I am listing the discussion in today's log. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs listed above don't show notability. Bruddersohn (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merriment[edit]

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

Unremarkable band article. Only claim of notability is a record contract with an unremarkable label. Lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 25. Snotbot t • c » 15:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found this write-up at Paste which is okay, but not much else. The other coverage I was able to locate was either too brief to be considered significant (e.g., [5]) or were merely reprinted parts out of a press release (e.g., this from this). The duo does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time, but it's a fairly new project so this can certainly be recreated at a later date if more significant independent coverage emerges. Gongshow ^Talk 01:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a platform for indie bands to promote themselves. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One more in the jumble of bands looking to make themselves known. The music should do that job, and in this case it has not.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Robot[edit]

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

I originally redirected this but that action was undone. While the topic is interesting, this article completely fails to meet WP:GNG. The two sources right now are unreliable (one is a Wikipedia article, one is a blog that uses this article as a source) A Google search yields no reliable sources that establish notability. Ryan Vesey 14:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of secondary sources in searches for "Gay Robot" with additional search parameter Sandler and/or Swardson. There's even multiple articles in a bunch of other languages.

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

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, can you please provide at least a few of the sources you are referring to? I don't see any reliable sources or sources that establish notability in those searches. Ryan Vesey 04:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are looking at the sources in those links provided through a different perspective and seeing what you wish to see or not see, but the secondary sources are there, in multitude. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some to the article including a few interviews. I gave up after the first 25 pages, there are a lot of YouTube links which is to be expected with this subject. Insomesia (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. Subject appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NOTABLE. There are no reliable sources on the topic available from a Google search, all I see are unreliable references. TBr and ley 03:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has to do with the world and it has a source Hulk3200 (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Inappropriate !vote, see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:NOTABLE, and thus should be deleted. Expand your comment properly to prove a valid argument. Also, the source is to "Blogspot", which is most certainly not reliable. TBr and ley 03:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not the best !vote, but the comment does mention sourcing, albeit it could have gone into a little more depth about sourcing. — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Insomesia

Keep. It may have not seemed obvious but there are sources discussing the original song, the writing process, the process of turning it into a show, the animation show and other facets as well as other gay robot memes. All brought together I think it passes GNG. Note to closer: Article expanded and sources added. Insomesia (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a glance at the changes and the article looks a lot better. I should have a chance soon to look through the sources and will modify my opinion then. Thanks for the improvements! Ryan Vesey 20:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Great job by Insomesia (talk · contribs) at improving the page with a multitude of source discussion, excellent work! :) — Cirt (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks good now. TBr and ley 20:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Insomesia has greatly expanded the article and added in references to prove this easily passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 08:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Insomesia's improvements and clear demonstration of notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep badly written, and wandering into seriously off topic territory. But clearly notable, and clearly enough on topic information to support an article. Support efforts towards clean-up. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Triwizard Tournament of Honorability[edit]

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

I can't find any sources at about this at all online, and the sources in the article don't mention this game. Fails WP:GNG. I'm surprised this article has lasted this long, to be quite honest. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see absolutely nothing to show subject's notability, or indeed, existence, other than wikipedia mirrors. The links don't mention the subject at all. Amazing this has been around since 2007. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources provided even mention this contest. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something WP:MADEUP in school one day. As others have noted, the 'sources' don't mention the tournament; the only thing the verify is the existence of Harry Potter and of teaching. Cnilep (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clamp Gakuen Tanteidan (song)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements per WP:NSONG ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomonation. –BuickCentury Driver 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not actually a song but a single, so notability should be determined by WP:NALBUMS, not WP:NSONG. 126.25.72.235 (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unreferenced. If references are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless there are Japanese sources that I have missed, I couldn't find anything reliable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". Warden (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary engineering[edit]

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

This page is of a poor quality, having been flagged with multiple problems from over a year and a half ago and longer. This page has demonstrated that it is unlikely to improve on its own after years of low quality. It has overcategorization/category stubs, and is completely redundant with the articles for Terraforming and Geoengineering. More importantly, it seems to be suffering from Wikipedia:FUTURE by predicting increased or decreased 'difficulty of colonizing' extra terrestrial worlds, by comparing Venus and Mars. Wikipedia can't know what is more or less likely in the future based on un-invented technology. Any claims to the contrary are forms of appealing to personal incredulity. I therefore move that this page be changed to a redirect to Terraforming or Geoengineering, or be completely rewritten. IllNeverUseThisAccount (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Concerns are over problems with the article, no problems about deletion. Just because an article is in bad shape doesn't mean it shouldn't have one. Deletions are based on notability, etc, actually. Doesn't matter what the "quality" is. TBr and ley 11:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley is actively stonewalling improvements to the article, and being disingenuous in suggesting that only notability is a factor. The page is redundant with Terraforming and has had outstanding issues for years with no improvement. Deletion is a perfectly legitimate request. --IllNeverUseThisAccount (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right here! Who ya talking to? It is not redundant with Terraforming, and deserves its own separate page. I stand by most of what I said. TBr and ley 11:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is not appropriate for WP:AFD. Reading the top of that page "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Thincat (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown of Motorsport[edit]

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

This is pure original research. The lead claim, for example, starts with "is often regarded as" which is a red flag for original research and is based on references that make no mention of the triple crown. The fact that only one person actually won it shows that it is not a widely used term and is not worth of an article. Biker Biker (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References 6,7, 8 and 10 do specifically mention the term. Suggesting it is widely used? Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Ian Dalziel points out, at least 4 of the references specifically mention the term and sources such as ESPN, autoracing.com and Sports Car Digest confirm the definitions provided in the article, which would seem to counter the suggestion of original research. And about 1 million Google hits suggest it's a fairly widely used term. The lead says "often regarded as" due to the alternative definitions for the term. DH85868993 (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – clearly quite well-referenced although some more work could be done. I don't see much evidence of OR, if any, and the nominator's claim that "the fact that only one person actually won it shows that it is not a widely used term" is a total non-sequitur. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – It is a term I have known well, but upon research into my "F1 Library", I find little reference to the Triple Crown of Motorsport. I was looking for Graham Hill, and only one of the places noted that he won the three "blue riband" events or something along those lines. These books are F1-specific books, however, and made little of anything Hill did outside of F1, his path to F1 and his death. I believe the Triple Crown of Motorsport is noteworthy enough to be an article. I also agree with Bretonbanquet that the fact only one person won it doesn't make it unnotable, it means it is difficult to achieve. —Gyaro –Maguus— 15:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly a well established concept. Just because the achievement is rare does not mean its unnotable. Nor that it is informal. Grand Slams in Tennis and Golf are informal yet well recognised. If you search the term in connection with drivers who have gone very close to matching the achievement, like Mario Andretti, Jacques Villeneuve and Juan Pablo Montoya you will find more material. Additionally the article was purged some time back of material that was original research, leaving behind that which is referenced. So these concerns have already been tested. --Falcadore (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Four references mention the term specifically and it is a widely used term especially with drivers that came close to completing it (such as Andretti & Montoya). I completely agree with the others above me. Editadam 12:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are enough references for the main definition and it's an established concept. --August90 (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Jimfbleak with comment "essay, OR, no sources, pov". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 13:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven mulenga[edit]

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

Unremarkable topic, large unwikified article, looks an original research. Fails WP:GNG. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article doesn't mention Steven Mulenga at all, although it was created by someone called User:Steven Mulenga. Possibly someone mistaking Wikipedia for a place to publish research papers. In any case, Mr. Mulenga isn't notable, and this isn't even an attempt at an encyclopedia article about him, or anything else. I suspect this could be speedied, though I don't know under which criteria. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article does not come close to being appropriate for WP on any grounds. My slight question is whether to temporarily userify (it was only created today) in case the author does not have his own copy. But no, if that is the case he can ask an admin to mail him a copy even after deletion. Thincat (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Theo polisme 01:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aliya Rasheed[edit]

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

Appears to be borderline for notability Eeekster (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete VERY borderline on WP:MUSICBIO. There is some soft coverage of the subject in a few newspapers, but she seems to currently fail all other aspects of MUSICBIO. Safiel (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability might be borderline, but the sources are still there to verify that the subject has some sort of notability. That itself is enough in my opinion to satisfy WP:GNG. Mar4d (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With these sources ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) it clearly satisfies WP:MUSICBIO, but no doubt it needs to be improved. --SMS ^Talk 17:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep the article is a crawling abomination, but the sources are there. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Muhl[edit]

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

Non-notable composer who fails WP:NMUSIC. No WP:RS available to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a couple of references, one her faculty profile, the other from a 3rd party publication regarding an award. The faculty profile does indicate that she has been recipient of various other awards too, so it is useful to anyone checking on notability. For that purpose, it may also be useful to refer back to the article version before its (unsourced) biographical content was removed: [12]. AllyD (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C2 -- the AAAL award is a lifetime achievement award which, while low money, is mainly won by composers in the upper echelon of composition (consider the level of the other winners that year). Her position is full professor at a top music school, which is substantially above the Average Professor Test. The commission by the Orchestra of Saint Luke's is also a high honor (the other commissions don't individually pass the WP:PROF test, but cumulatively they do). Saying "Non-notable" isn't, to me, an argument in itself for deletion -- it's a conclusion to be reached based on evidence of lack of notability -- the website of the AAAL is a reliable source for who their winners are and the websites of the orchestras are reliable sources of who their commissioned composers are. I agree with AllyD that trimming the article of 2/3 of its content (including a notice about a commission of hers that appeared in the New York Times!) just before nominating for deletion is bad form. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – what M. S. Cuthbert wrote. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iglesia Evangélica Bautista[edit]

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

no indication given of this being more than a local neighborhood church. no other refs found. the image given is accurate: thats the whole church, a regular size house on a corner. (i checked google view). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This single local church does not appear to satisfy the notability standards of WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with religious topics, they will rarely receive any significant news coverage but Google News archives found one minor mention here (third result from the top, disregarding the Wikipedia result); Google Books provided what seem to be directories but nothing useful. As the nominator notes, Google Maps Street view confirms the image provided is indeed the church and it seems to be fairly small and probably has an all-Hispanic audience. Additionally, I haven't found an official website for this church suggesting this is indeed a small church thus not notable. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability: Wikipedia is neither a directory or an advertising site and there is nothing in the article that leads one to suspect that is is notable. Jpacobb (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable local church. I was unable to think of a suitable redirect target. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural close: although these articles have a common theme, the nature of their subjects differ so that they are not a suitable group for bundling together - see WP:BUNDLE - because the arguments concerning their notability are likely to differ, so that a single discussion will become confused. Please raise separate AfDs. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amikeca Reto[edit]

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

Not notable. EnlightenmentAchievedAgain (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following related articles for the same reason:

EnlightenmentAchievedAgain (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think these articles should be nominated separately. Some of them, like the Akademio de Esperanto, look like obvious keeps to me. Others, like the Kurso de Esperanto, will take more research to verify whether or not they fail WP:GNG. Having these as a joint nomination will make things confusing for the borderline cases here. Would you like me to separate the nominations for you? It won't be too much trouble. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Pasporta Servo is sufficiently notable that it should not be deleted: as the article mentions, it is the second most essential publication, next to the Plena Ilustrita Vortaro. It is an essential part of Esperanto culture. --Wh44 4:08 PM 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is five different questions, and should be the subject of five different discussions. It is hard to assume good faith when such obvious speedy keeps as the Akademio are on this list. Since I'm a known Esperantist, I ask that some non-involved admin close this nomination immediately, then suggest to EAA that he/she start five separate discussions. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G7 at author's request JohnCD (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funmoods[edit]

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

page on a computer virus - apparently self-researched, borderline attack page on a company, no indication that this particular virus is especially notable Travelbird (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not intended to be an attack page. define notable please. Sutton Shin (talk)

Delete Certainly real, but non-notable topic itself through reliable sources. TBr and ley 08:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly referenced; not enough reliable source coverage to establish notability of this virus. Dialectric (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Toy Train Museum[edit]

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

Notability not established in accordance with WP:ORG or WP:GNG. A search for reliable, independent sources came up with nothing outside of promotional content for the organization. Cindy(talk to me) 08:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from this AP article, there's little more than passing mentions in "things to do in Pennsylvania" type pieces. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:NONPROFIT International collaboration with Swiss museums, houses national resource library for model railroaders; longevity (37 years). Has an archival function, not simply a tourist attraction. The train museums in Strasburg appear to be independent; I'm not sure it makes sense to fold this into Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania. Djembayz (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several good references have been added, since this (good-faith) nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't exactly a train set in some guy's basement we're talking about here. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources now in the article and many more available at GNews, HighBeam, etc., establish that this is a notable tourist attraction. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage in 3rd party reliable sources to pass WP:N RadioFan (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to several good references being added since the nomination. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dan "DFS" Johnson. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 01:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DFS Records[edit]

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

Not notable record label. I did a quick search on Google and was unable to find any proof of notability. Of course, I may be wrong. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dan "DFS" Johnson. Seems obvious. --Michig (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I began this article. I thought it was a notable record label for it releases in Christian rap music, specifically in Canada in the mid-2000's, with success in radio play and awards from the Canadian Gospel Music Association. It has since been updated fixing some errors and lack of references. James Stranahan 20:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtybofficial (talk • contribs)
Keep this is a known\notable gospel rap music label. David Smallz 17:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.169.123 (talk) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 07:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dan "DFS" Johnson (or vice versa). Material on the label does not appear sufficient enough at this time (in terms of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources) to warrant an individual article, but it can appropriately be contained within Johnson's article. Gongshow ^Talk 01:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to head, as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I withdraw this nomination. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley 04:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Nicolas Lemmens[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable, having no English significant coverage or reliable sources at all in order to pass the WP:GNG key guideline. Appears to be an entry at the French Wikipedia, but that's French, needs to be English. TBr and ley 07:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article translated from the Dutch Wikipedia; I've added the interwiki and the Dutch source for the article. Menke66 (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Since I can't find a notability guideline for bishops and I'm not particularly aware of how important they are in the Catholic Church, I have mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Ryan Vesey 16:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source, but it doesn't do anything to help establish notability. Ryan Vesey 16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you did not look on the French page carefully enough as on the French page it is a Jacques Nicolas Lmmens the famous organ player.

Why you want to delete the Jean-Nicolas Lemmens page is without a valuable reason ? It has significance for the B.C. Canada people as he was the bishop of St. Andrew Cathedral and layed the first stone for that Cathedral.

Glemmens1940 (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, see my nomination description. No notability, consider that. TBr and ley 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Pending comment from someone from WikiProject catholocism, it appears that Catholic Bishops are notable. See List of the Catholic bishops of the United States. Lemmens was Bishop of Vancouver Island from 1888-1897 so there will be less than the customary number of good sources, but I still feel he is notable. He was also known as John Nicholas Lemmens and a decent amount of material was written about him on page 515 of this PD book. Unless someone else incorporates that material (it can be copied or completely rewritten) I hope to do so soon. Ryan Vesey 20:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consensus has been that Catholic bishops are almost always considered notable - this discussion from last year [13]. Also, see this essay [14]. Also, per Ryan's above comments, the bishop in question is mentioned in some sources. Majoreditor (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bishops of major denominations are invariably considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are a few GoogleBooks hits which seem to discuss his contribution in the context of a wider view of Canadian Catholic history. There's also one which would seem to provide some details (biographical) by way of an obituary not long after his death. However, I'm struggling to source online links and most of the content is in French anyway. WP:NOENG provides for sources in languages other than English (they can all be in French - there's not requirement for them to be in English) but my limited French and lack of access to the texts themselves means checking reliability of the sources is going to be a struggle. That aside, there seems to be a contention that all bishops are (by default) considered notable. I'm not a huge of all x are notable arguments without some more to back it up, but everything combined would suggest this article should be kept. Stalwart111 03:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, I've had a crack at doing some cleaning up - removed some of the strange language that came with the copy-paste, provided some verification references, fixed a few of the links, etc. Stalwart111 04:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 {{db-person}}. Please, note the claim on the creator's user page (User:Sufwansyed): Syed Sufwan born Syed Sufwan Mohiuddin on 12 December 1999) is an Chairman of S.P.G.O.O and Author. He has written 5 stories. The content is almost identical with the deleted page. I guess this article was probably a test page (?). Anyway, there's no information online about "Prem Kapoor, Chairman of S.P.G.O.O and author who has written 5 stories." Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Kapoor[edit]

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

Non-notable topic that fails WP:GNG. Doesn't fall under A7 due to Internet Movie Database cover, but there is still no sign of significant coverage or reliable sources at all from Google (IMDb is not reliable). Propose deletion. TBr and ley 07:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion - This is very interesting, the article claims he was born in 2003 (though the author initially listed 1999) and yet claims he is an author and chairman of some group called "S.P.G.O.O." but never clarifies. I think the author may have submitted in error so I have tagged the article as A7. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consumer sovereignty. History will be left intact due to the level of interest expressed in merging some material to that article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The customer is king[edit]

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

Non-notable expression, unreferenced, fails WP:DICDEF, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here, and I'm not finding anything that could be used to bulk it up. I've nominated The customer is always right at Rfd (it redirects to Customer). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dictionary definition, no sources whatsoever. JIP | Talk 10:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be added. This is not a dictionary definition. Tinton5 (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per below. It is a bit similar to the customer is always right, however, this page needs to be expanded more a bit, and try to differentiate from other similar such phrases. Here are some sources I found: [15], [16], [17]. Tinton5 (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge I've made a start on the similar slogan, the customer is always right, as noted above. I find no difficulty in expanding that as it is a commonplace concept in the world of business. For example, entire books have been written about the underlying concept such as Customer Is King and The Customer is King. This attitude may be difficult for those who seem to delight in frustrating our readership but this is all the more reason to provide comprehensive coverage. Warden (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You saved me some trouble. I hope that you are going to work in Herb Kelleher and Mrs Crabapple (Benefiel 2005, p. 70 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBenefiel2005 (help) and Freiberg & Freiberg 2002, p. 270 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFreibergFreiberg2002 (help)) as soon as possible, too. Otherwise you'll have written a one-sided stub worthy of a big {{NPOV}} dispute. (Woods, Hebron & Bradley 2001, pp. 98–99 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWoodsHebronBradley2001 (help) and Iacobucci, Grayson & Ostrom 1994 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIacobucciGraysonOstrom1994 (help))
  - Benefiel, Margaret (2005). Soul at Work: Spiritual Leadership in Organizations. Church Publishing, Inc.
  - Freiberg, Kevin; Freiberg, Jackie (2001). Nuts!: Southwest Airlines' crazy recipe for business and personal success. Texere. ISBN 9781587991196.
  - Woods, Allan; Hebron, Lesley; Bradley, Sally (2001). Customer Service: S/NVQ Level 3. Heinemann. ISBN 9780435452278.
  - Iacobucci, Dawn; Grayson, Kent; Ostrom, Amy (1994-07-15). "Customer Satisfaction Fables". Sloan Management Review. 35 (4): 93–96.
  - Henney, Nella Braddy (1922). "The Value of Courtesy". The Book of Business Etiquette. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Page & Co.
- Also, I'll see your self-serving historical revisionist source written forty years after the fact by the president of Marshall Field & Co., and I'll raise you Nella Braddy Henney from some twenty years earlier.
  - "Commercial greed, there is no other name for it, leads a firm to adopt some such idiotic motto as 'the customer is always right'. No organization could ever live up to such a policy, and the principle back of it is undemocratic, un-American, unsound, and untrue. […] America does not want a service class with a 'king-can-do-no-wrong' attitude toward the public. Business is service, not servility, and courtesy works both ways." — Henney 1922, p. 36
- ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into: The customer is always right. Tons of sources, far more common term, and they both mean the same thing.--Coin945 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge with customer sovereignty. Given the evidence by Xerographical, I am convinced that if this article gets merged anywhere, it should be to that article. In fact, I am more inclined to merge. But the inclusionist within me can also see the subtle differences between them (sometimes you need multiple articles on the exact same topic, from the perspective of different discourses), and would therefore also accept a keep.--Coin945 (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Consider this passage...

Wal-Mart can’t charge more; if it does, its customers will go elsewhere. The same is true of Target and Costco. In a sense, Wal-Mart is the elected representative of tens of millions of hard-bargaining shoppers, and, like any representative, it serves only at their pleasure. - James Surowiecki, The Customer is King

This doesn't really seem to fit, at least from my perspective, with the customer always being right. The customer is always right seems to be more of a customer service mantra...while the customer is king is perhaps a bit broader...to include the suitability/desirability of new goods/services...as well as prices. In other words...the customer is always right is style while the customer is king is both style and substance. So perhaps it could just be merged into consumer sovereignty...but personally...I'd prefer to just keep it and allow it to develop. If it fails to be differentiated enough...then we can debate merging. --Xerographica (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Consumer sovereignty. I'm not convinced that either of these two sentences need to be merged there, but would have no objection to such action if others disagree. Cnilep (talk) 01:50, 20 November 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, —Theo polisme 07:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The customer is always right. They are the same thing, with "always right" being the more common expression. Both could be merged to customer service or even customer if you like. I feel that the expressions are notable enough for their own article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading other people's comments I see that "the customer is king" can also be about Consumer sovereignty, as a factual statement. As well as about customer service, as advice or policy. No need for WP to define a string of 4 words whose literal meaning is clear. Even a real dictionary would not do that, much less WP which is "not a dictionary." Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 123,000 search results for "consumer sovereignty" but 3,510,000 results for "The customer is king". When people search for "the customer is king" why wouldn't we want them to find the Wikipedia article on the subject? If anything...consumer sovereignty should redirect to the customer is king. In fact, the only reason that any of you even know about the consumer sovereignty article is because I mentioned it. Yet I'm sure that many...most...of you have already heard of the expression that the customer is king. That's pretty conclusive evidence that the title of the article should be "the customer is king". --Xerographica (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point. Renaming Consumer sovereignty makes sense. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the urban dictionary. I have a feeling that someone is literally going through the urban dictionary and creating wikipedia pages to boost their creation count. I wish there was a speedy delete tag that we could use for these. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean we get credit for every page we create? Where can I go to see how many pages that somebody has created? How many pages have I created? --Xerographica (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=Xerographica. WWGB (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, you have way more credit than I do! *runs over to browse the urban dictionary* --Xerographica (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 04:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4g wifi[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete. It was speedy delete tagged at 22:04, 24 November 2012‎ by User:Vacation9. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir you have deleted my page and listed it as a hoax.
My page is no joke sir. It provides information. Which countries currently have 4G Wifi Networks and which companies provide these networks. The information has been researched and is not biased to any one supplier. The page will also be helpful to anyone researching 4G wifi global suppliers. And defines what 4G Wifi actually is. Please can you explain which part or why you think that this page was a hoax and I ask with respect for you to reverse your decision to delete this Wikipedia page.

Kind Regards

4gwifi (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)I did not delete the page, nor can I speak for Anthony, but I know very well that 4G is not a form of Wifi. Therefore the notion of a "4G Wifi" is erroneous on a technical level.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 25. Snotbot t • c » 06:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. 4g and wifi should not be confused. "4g wifi" is not a standard, and not a term used in research papers. A list of countries can be found in the List of LTE networks article, and would also be suitable in the WiMAX or IEEE 802.16 article.Mange01 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The previous AFD was reopened after the speedy delete was contested, so there are now two open AFDs, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4g wifi — Frankie (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Jasper, this is a made-up term for something which doesn't exist. Majoreditor (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close since there is another (earlier) AfD discussion open and there shouldn't be two simultaneous discussions on the same subject. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to 4G, which is what the content is about. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All Spectre Appearances[edit]

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

Article is a database of appearances of a comic book character. As Wikipedia is not a directory, the article should be deleted. Odie5533 (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a textbook example of Wikipedia is not a directory. This is just a list for the sake of being a list. JIP | Talk 06:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory that covers non-notable topics. TBr and ley 08:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Spectre is a notable character, so that doesn't help us here. postdlf (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Spectre is notable, but the topic of the article is "All Spectre Appearances". I don't think that is notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Spectre (comics). Fortdj33 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is excessive detail and some of it trivial (for the acronym-hungry out there, probably more WP:IINFO than WP:NOTDIR, FWIW). For comic book characters, it's appropriate to have in a fictional character's article a bibliography of titles about that character, but only in abbreviated form, not issue-by-issue as this does. Longstanding consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics (which I agree with here) is also that listing every appearance in every comic book is unnecessary and not encyclopedic because it does end up being trivial for many characters who have had many such appearances, most of which don't accomplish anything lasting in terms of developing the character. Here, we're dealing with a 70-year old character that DC Comics has frequently trotted out as a deux ex machina in other superhero titles. postdlf (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? It's nothing but references, with issue numbers and cover dates. postdlf (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now that is a good take on things. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Theo polisme 01:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring home invasions[edit]

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

There is no indication that the topic is significantly covered in sources. The list does not appear to be notable. See also, Afd: List of films featuring diabetes. – Zntrip 05:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how featuring home invasion is a notable attribute of films. JIP | Talk 06:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & above comment. Seems to be listcruft. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, if only to stop this being closed per WP:SNOW. I think it warrants greater discussion and I'd be interested to read others' thoughts on lists like these, which I can well imagine having genuine utility for some of our readers. In addition, the nominator's statement that the sources don't cover this topic does seem to be contradicted by those used to reference this list, the first of which is titled ... "Terror From Inside: 10 Home Invasion Classics". Steve ^T • C 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the home invasion theme in film is defined and given significant coverage in scholarly sources. For example:

The Home Invasion Theme in French Cinema Since 1995 Quarterly Review of Film and Video, Volume 28, Issue 3, 2011

or -- Allison Whitney's essay in The Cell Phone Reader discussing the "tradition of home-invasion scenarios" in film (referenced in the article.)

or -- "Race and Real Estate in Panic Room and The People Under The Stairs" Quarterly Review of Film and Video Volume 30, Issue 1, 2013 discusses the "commonalities with many late-twentieth and early twenty-first century home invasion films.")

The theme is also well-referenced in pop culture: Tribeca Film festival, Cinegeek, etc. A google search finds no shortage of the term as it relates to movies in reliable sources. And, finally, each item on the list is cited to a source. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per analysis by CactusWriter. I note that the list is far from complete, and can think of several easily sourcable and notable films off the top of my head that feature home invasions. IE how about those in the Home Alone (franchise)? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — In response to CactusWriter's comment, while there may be sufficient sources about the topic, there is a difference between an article entitled "Home invasion in film" and "List of films featuring home invasions". While a significant recurring plot element may be notable enough to warrant an individual article, a simple list of films featuring that plot element is not. I do not see the utility in such a list of films. That said, if someone would like to rename the article so that it has the potential to be expanded beyond a simple list, I will be willing to withdraw the nomination. – Zntrip 23:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zntrip, your rationale for this AFD is "no indication" of significant coverage or notability. Comments addressed the issue -- to demonstrate coverage and notability -- which I believe has been done adequately. You are now shifting to something else entirely. So... as far as a stub article requiring expansion: I agree that the article's single sentence introduction is skimpy -- and it should be expanded to provide an overview of the subject. (As suggested by our MOS guidelines for stand-alone lists). However, an article needing expansion is not a valid criteria for deletion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article, in its current form cannot expand beyond what it currently is: a list of films. The scope of the article is so narrow and no amount of sources will change that. For a list of films depicting X to meet the criteria for notability, the list itself has to be notable; it is not sufficient to demonstrate that X in film is notable. – Zntrip 19:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zntrip, Wikipedia allows categories, lists, and navigation templates, which can overlap. The list form serves this topic best because it is an approach that provides a clear reference for listing a film that features a home invasion. (In contrast, films directed by a filmmaker are less immediately disputed and can be in a category or a navigation template.) As you said, there "may be sufficient sources", and I would argue that there is enough at least for a stand-alone list, and I quoted the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists below. These guidelines are distinct from guidelines applied to a prose article because it mentions that references that share sets of items (namely, films that feature home invasion) can be the basis for a list on Wikipedia itself. I'm not sure why you think that this topic cannot just be a list of films. If a reader enjoyed a film that featured home invasion, should Wikipedia not be able to share similar films of this type, explicitly backed by reliable sources? Erik (talk | contribs) 10:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable list. (Note: I am the creator of the article.) Of the set of references in the article, there are four that identify a set of films that feature home invasion. The other references are acceptable because they each identify a film that features home invasion, which is appropriate per the guidelines for stand-alone lists, "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." Like I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring diabetes, I do not think there is enough content out there for a Home invasion in film prose article. The guidelines I quote clearly allow a space for such lists, which benefit readers on Wikipedia. This is a relatively marginal topic, to be sure, but the films have been identified in sets by secondary sources, and the topic is highlighted in additional references. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for quoting at length, but A Companion to Alfred Hitchcock (from which I reference six films) says the following: "More recently, however, the 'home invasion movie' has become something of a genre... [The referenced films] are among a string of recent films in which the violation of the home is at issue. Such films reflect an increased fear of the erosion of distinctions between private and public space, already present in Hitchcock's mistaken identity films. These films also reflect a sense that the outside world is more dangerous and unpredictable than ever before. Finally, the home in these films can be seen as a practical substitute for the family: a static, physical symbol of what is, in our current society, fractured and changeable. Of course, replacing an organic idea like the family with a static, material one like the home limits the depth and variety of what can be expressed." This is clear fodder for this topic and could be used to expand the lead section. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the lengthy comments by CactusWriter and Erik. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.. but why not merge it to Home invasion? Either way is OK with me. Anyway, CactusWriter showed this is a legitimate genre of study. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that home invasion is a different type of article; it is one about crime. This list article is more film-centric in terms of art and entertainment and related critical studies. In short, I don't think the list of films fits comfortably with the main article's primary context of crime. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CactusWriter, well-defined and notable film sub-genre. Cavarrone (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game Zero magazine[edit]

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

This topic about a video game magazine fails WP:GNG. Additionally, opinion regarding the notability of media on Wikipedia can be read at the essay Wikipedia:Notability (media). Google Books only yields passing mentions, and Google News archives search yields no results other than the article's Wikipedia page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable sources that discuss the magazine in-depth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 18 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 05:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find significant coverage of the magazine in any reliable source. Delete per WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, Google News and Books hasn't provided anything that is relevant or not Wikipedia. The lack of sources is probably because it was published for a short period of time and it seems the external link provided has been abandoned. The archived content at the website suggests this magazine existed but likely never received attention and nothing about the magazine itself though it seems this wasn't a professional magazine either. My last resort, I searched the main Google engine and found one email which provides very little use. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SmartSE (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest G. Hope[edit]

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

Per Ticket:2012112510000767, this article has been nominated for the following reason:

My guess is that Mr. Hope wrote this article about himself to add credibility to his business projects. You should know that I also found (negative BLP claim redacted), as well as Youtube videos he made where he claims to work at Stanford University, which is not true.

I know you cannot police every Wikipedia article. But, I would suggest you insist this author either substantiate his claims or take down his article. I am not a person who likes to stir trouble. But, I am afraid that older, vulnerable people might see the article on Wikipedia, assume it is fact, and be hurt by a deceitful person. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts, do you have an opinion yourself, or are you merely transmitting the nomination from a third party? --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely transmitting a message, and do not wish to express an opinion myself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know if there was a conflict of interest involved, but the article is definitely promotional and the subject doesn't appear to be notable at all. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio; identical copy found here [18]. Furthermore, I don't believe a lot of the stuff in the article and will do further research if it is not speedy-deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was able (through a passworded account) to confirm that he DID in fact receive MD and PhD degrees from Stanford in 1999. His book "COURAGE" appears to be self-published.[19] --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not able to confirm anything else, and many of the claims in the article seem very dubious. ...which makes him today "The Father of Adult Stem Cells". I could not confirm that anyone else calls him this. Hope was the first to discover and publish the then unthinkable concept of "re-embryonalization of adult differentiated cells. I could find no such publication at PubMed or Google Scholar, where his articles are minimal and his citation level unremarkable. Furthermore, the article claims that he made this breakthrough in 1986, when he was 20; he did not receive his doctoral degrees until 1999. Hope has been mentored by Linus Pauling. Linus Pauling never worked on stem cells that I can find, and he was only at Stanford from 1969 to 1972[20] - in other words when Hope was a small child. Basically there is a lot of unconfirmed and unlikely material in this article, and what can be confirmed does not make him notable.--MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking reliable sources on review of article and searching; above concerns compound the problem. -- Scray (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, presto. Smacks of self-promotion. The hooter of a claim to be "known as the father of adult stem cells" is not supported at adult stem cells or at related sources, and ditto for other claims. Two relatively minor publications, fails WP:ACADEMIC by far too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth or consequences-2 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craftsuprint[edit]

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

The article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG; non-notable topic. TBr and ley 06:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this during NPP and I honestly didn't know what to do with it. I figured I'd wait a few hours to see if the author(s) were going to clean it up or provide some actual references, but no dice. As far as I can tell this is the main assertion to notability, but I can't make a call as to whether that source is reliable or not. §FreeRangeFrog 06:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. The only claim to notability is the top50crafters website which imo is not a reliable source for many reasons, the first of which is it looks strongly like a cheap website made with a site such as webs.com etc., and secondly it seems to allow anyone to be able to add whatever they want as long as they're the owner of the business, which makes it fail reliability again. Thusly, I have to say delete on all fronts. gwickwire | Leave a message 20:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The top 50 crafters website is based on traffic and unique vistors to a website, which is why I included it and thought it notable. Please give guidance on what would be notable on UK web based company as all references are web based? I also have no idea why this should be included in television or games related discussions as it is neither? Lisabagz (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG; non-notable subject, irredeemable blatant advertising.Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment blatant advertising? I have no interest in advertising, I wrote it as a timeline of events. This website was the first of its kind and has launched digital crafting as a whole; I thought it was worthy of an article because of this. I would appreciate any help in editing it so that it is not deemed to be advertising as this was not the intention. I am not experienced in wiki language, so any guidance or assistance would be appreciated. Lisabagz (talk) 11:49, 21 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 05:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sigma TV. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 01:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SigmaLive[edit]

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

Non notable? Sourcing from Alexa. Secretlondon (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How could this article be so irrelevant to Wikipedia? There is a plethora of articles from all over the world regarding the top web portals. Der Spiegel, WSJ, BBC etc. SigmaLive has exactly the same significance for Cyprus as any other channel in a bigger country (Please view Alexa Rankings). What is the logic behind the deletion? If you have any doubts regarding my credibility then simply view my history of articles. I am only motivated by data. Its easier to delete something rather than to create or improve. talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euclidthalis (talk • contribs) 11:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 30 October 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:15, 4 November 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, — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Sigma TV, per WP:GNG. NoLittle reliably sourced content worth merging. Failed to find any indication of notability in my search. -- Trevj (talk) 12:32, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:28, 18 November 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, —Theo polisme 05:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sigma TV, per Trevj. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sigma TV, which is what this is. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelie (ride)[edit]

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

This ride isn't notable and secondary sources will be hard to find so its entirely unsourced. The ride could be merged into Six Flags Over Georgia. Astros4477 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability (unsourced with no claim of notability). Nothing sourced = nothing to merge. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:35, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:27, 18 November 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, —Theo polisme 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for its own article. No need to merge anything; the fact that it was introduced in 1977 and removed in 2012 to make room for the SkyScreamer is already mentioned in the Six Flags Over Georgia timeline, and the incident where the ride failed to stop is already included in Incidents at Six Flags parks. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sole keep argument disputed, and that keep argument acknowledges source reliability problems—Kww(talk) 23:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Lions[edit]

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

CSD A7 removed by creator but the added refs are not WP:RS and still do not add up to notability per WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It certainly isn't an A7, but apart from the brief SPIN piece, I couldn't find much else, which is surprising for someone who has remixed for some very high profile artists and who has been played quite a bit on BBC radio in the UK. If anyone can come up with more coverage I may reconsider. --Michig (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 3 November 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, Gongshow ^Talk 03:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A number of blog posts, and not much else apart from a few other (individually insubstantial) mentions in what may be RSs.[21][22][23] If these (and others, if they're available) are no good, then I guess I'll reconsider to weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. -- Trevj (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt they would be considered reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 17:09, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:26, 18 November 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, —Theo polisme 05:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hopsin. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gazing at the Moonlight[edit]

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

Google News archives proves that it exists. But those aren't sources that allow this album to pass notability standards. According to WP:NALBUMS, this should be, at best, a redirect and I would have made it one, were it not for the fact that I think there's a couple of fans who would simply revert and revert again, and they outnumber me. Mindy Dirt (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hopsin#2007-2009:_Struggle_with_Ruthless_Records - Aside from the two Google News archives results, I found another brief mention here. I haven't found any reliable sources to confirm this but it seems the album only sold 42 copies so it probably received minimal attention. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you kidding? How did you find that? You wouldn't have guessed from Hopsin's article that he's not a superstar. Is Hiphopdx a reliable source? Mindy Dirt (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete why bother with a redirect? It is not a notable album. --Bejnar (talk) 06:35, 16 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:25, 18 November 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, —Theo polisme 05:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hopsin. Not notable, but it's a plausible search term. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crimewatch (Singaporean TV series) episodes (2012)[edit]

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

Just an indiscriminate list of episodes that are not notable on their own (as episodes themselves; the show is notable) such lists should not exist, as they most often fail WP:NOTDIR unless the number of episodes are a lot and the size of the main suggests a split. Bit in THIS case, no. Delete Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 10:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We normally don't list episodes for series of ths kind, regardless; it looks akin to America's Most Wanted. So I'm skeptical that even a merge is in order. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:25, 18 November 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, —Theo polisme 05:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for an episode listing for this kind of show, and the episode blurbs are taken straight from the official website. The best way to include this information would be to list the most notable cases in the main article, following the example set by the UK version. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Living End (film). Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dytri[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and does not cite any reliable 3rd party sources that represent biographical information. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to The Living End (film) - Far too little work to be considered notable aside from his most known work The Living End. A Google News and Google Books search provides mainly results for The Living End and his character, Luke, but nothing significant for Mike Dytri himself. A Google News search for his company, Ludwig Van, provided nothing relevant. My last resort for his company was searching with a main Google search which provided blogs here and here. Mike Dytri is not notable as a businessman or actor at this time. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:22, 18 November 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, —Theo polisme 05:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Queen's University. MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's School of Computing[edit]

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

An Individual department in a good quality research university . No evidence of particular notability. Our usual standard is to be one of the half-dozen or so highest ranking departments in the world, (or , equivalently, of world-famous.) I note there are no 3rd party references-- except for the most famous departments, this will usually be the case, which is why they almost always fail notability

No evidence of particular distinction even within the country. Lists of r teaching programs is not encyclopedic content. There is nothing here that is not covered in the departments web site. and almost everything about the academic program will be of interest only to students there or prospective students. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent institution, in line with Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges. AllyD (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. If a book about the history of the university has been published, the book should have enough information about the school of computing to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

since the School was not founded until 2004, I doubt any of the books about the university listed on the main university page would cover it; they were published earlier. The references you added were one to the university's own news bulletin, one to a news service announcement about the appointment of a professor, and one about a single contest by their student programming team in which they placed 12th overall. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 24 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. The title is an imprecise search term for a redirect; better would be Queen's University School of Computing or even Queen's University at Kingston School of Computing. Changing what links to this article would be more practical. JFHJr (㊟) 06:26, 18 November 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, —Theo polisme 05:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did not find any independent refs to establish notability. Merge to Queen's University would seem to create an WP:UNDUE issue. I have added a note to Talk:Queen's University soliciting additional input. -—Kvng 05:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Queen's University. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable from an academic standpoint at the international or even the national level.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ras Kass. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spit No Evil[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS — Ṟ Ṉ™ 06:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not fail WP:NALBUMS, it had references and 3 reviews, much more than hundreds of albums articles.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those reviews do not come from reliable sources. One of them is a blog on Tumblr, the other is an unreliable music website.... — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why Urbanology Magazine is an unreliable site? Any proof of that? It doesnt seem to be unreliable in this other article: Allow Me to Re-Introduce Myself, should it be deleted also?. So, the references of the article are from reliable sources, used in several other WP articles (DJ Booth, Baller Status, Hip HopDX...), claim on failing WP:NALBUMS not true.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that the Tumblr review has been removed. 2013mixtapes.com is unreliable too, so it should be gone. Urbanology Magazine is reliable, I guess... — Ṟ Ṉ™ 18:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK done, still no reason for deletion. Would be much better to delete the non-professional-reliable content instead of trying to delete the whole article, isnt it?. Good faith and all that...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not assuming bad faith. I'd like to keep the article, but only if it meets the notability guidelines. If you, or any other users, provides sufficient links to achieve this purpose, I'd gladly withdraw the nomination. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient links!?!?!??? Come on! The article has 9!!! I bet you that 80% of WP album articles had less links. Seeing that, I cannot believe that you want to keep the article, but to erase it. I would understand it in the previous case (The Yellow Snow EP), as it had no reliable coverage, but in this case wich is clearly sourced...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Twelve sources now. If this one is deleted, dozens if not hundreds of WP album articles should be deleted also.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is based on several reliable sources, used on other WP articles (Hiphopdx.com, Ballerstatus.com, Soulculture.co.uk...). It also has a professional review (Urbanology.com) and had information about the album different from the tracklist.Finally, the article is also necessary to have a comprenhensive coverage of Ras Kass discography.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:30, 19 November 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, —Theo polisme 05:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Ras Kass. Not enough significant coverage to demonstrate notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, dozens if not hundreds of album articles should be deleted. For example, Allow Me to Re-Introduce Myself should be merged or redirected if we do not have double standards. Of course, if this one is deleted, for fairness Im gonna put AfD's in all that albums articles...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no doubt that hundreds of album articles should be deleted. See WP:WAX. If there are other articles you think don't measure up to our notability standards, go ahead and nominate them for deletion, but their existence has no bearing on this AfD. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of commercial or artistic impact. Indeed, if hundreds of these articles would be removed, WP would be better off. Could indeed be noted under artists.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator ([24]) (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

50 Cent feuds[edit]

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

Basicly a copy from the main article 50 Cent#Feuds. Any information needed should be merged accordingly. STATic message me! 07:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know... that's a lot of material. I haven't looked through it yet, but assuming that it's all sourced and neutrally written, it might be better for all of this to be branched out into another article so it can be more fully fleshed out. Then we can shorten all of the material on 50's page with the comment to see the feud page for further info.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should... There seems to be a lot of information on the feuds he has had. It's good information if you ask me. JoyRider (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 19 November 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, —Theo polisme 04:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a legitimate split. The "Feuds" section of 50 Cent should be rewritten in summary style, with a hatnote link to this article. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's referenced and has sufficient substance. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. STATic message me! 21:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collections (Delphic album)[edit]

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

Per WP:HAMMER. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 07:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:HAMMER states that "If the name and track order of a future album are not yet known, the album is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia". Both are known here, so the essay you quoted does not indicate deletion. In fact, the album has already received a fair amount of coverage, e.g. NME, The Fly, This Is Fake DIY, Clash, XfM, Entertainment Focus, PopMatters. Personally, I would prefer that people wait until there is more to be said before they create articles on future albums, but given that the album is out in 2 months and that more coverage will appear between now and then, deletion seems pointless. --Michig (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are limited amount of coverage regarding the album. The tracklisting is very clear but the track order and release format is yet to be announced. However, given that it is 2 months til its scheduled release, deletion is pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.51.134 (talk) 18:23, 21 November 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, —Theo polisme 04:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sources. Suggest user ask for a WP:REFUND to WP:AfC on release. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwan Yun Hang[edit]

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

Is this protestor sufficiently notable? Not that I can see from the article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no sources found to establish any notability.-Cold Season (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero visibility except circular on G Books.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The London Weekly[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is unsourced except for a link to the subject website. Almost all of the material in the article is unsupported, even by the subject's website. If you look at the About Us of The London Weekly, it links to Wikipedia. Finally, if you look at the bylines of the news stories, all of them are written by "Administrator". Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, and not to be confused with the free newspaper that should really have its article at this title. --Michig (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 19 November 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, —Theo polisme 04:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking indepth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. 05:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Moore (mechanic)[edit]

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

Sources provided are not RS, cannot find any other sources with the best of my Google-ing linking a "Henry Moore" to the V8 engine. Legoktm (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources for this either, beyond a possible Ancestry.com link, so perhaps this is somebody's family member, but unfortunately not a notable one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 19 November 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, —Theo polisme 04:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources and notability is not inherited from Big Al. He's not even the most notable mechanic - that would be Henry L. Moore, with the Tuskegee Airmen.[25][26] Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, after being listed for 9 days no one has reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information in any of the 3 dozen books on Ford/Henry/Company I own/have read points to or mentions a name of "Henry Moore".

The added (very recent) picture of a very basic and original Model A Tudor does not support this article. -Rather, the picture is just oddly included in this stub irregardless of the picture Not being related in anyway to a Flathead V8 engine (Model A's had 4 cylinders or 'Bangers' as they are often called). -The included picture does nothing to substantiate the stub (It's just a nicely restored Model A) but perhaps somebody threw the picture up to help support this unfounded stub. The user who created this stub is also editing other articles in order to somehow substantiate this name and stub. -External Links seem to go nowhere useful. -Delete this stub-Moefuzz (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources to substantiate notability. Ancestry.com is not a reliable source. Aside from the fact that an internet forum for Aussie hotrodders is not a reliable source, the posts there don't even mention Moore. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Kauper[edit]

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

Non-notable law academic. All references are University of Michigan domains. No evidenceof independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Served as the Assistant Atty General for Antitrust for 2 years in the 1970s, the chief antitrust enforcement officer in the US. That alone probably suffices. Google "antitrust division kauper" and a raft of citations will turn up, including this Department of Justice award to Kauper and one of his successors, William F. Baxter, for their roles in the ATT breakup. Link.. Here's another link, this one from a book describing Kauper actions as AAG. He's notable. JohnInDC (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As "the Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Michigan Law School" he unquestionably meets thew requirements of WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if that claim were supported by an independent source, which it doesn't appear to be. It doesn't matter how famous a university is, it's still his employer and thus not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something but it would seem to me that the University is in a pretty good position to say whether one of its professors holds a named chair, and for the purposes of establishing that fact may be deemed a reliable source. JohnInDC (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Prof as above. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward H. Cooper[edit]

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

Non-notable law academic. No claim of notability. No independent refs. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absurd nomination. There is third-party ref, and Cooper is a notable civil procedure scholar; he wrote the major legal treatise on American civil procedure. And he has been reporter of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States since 1992; that committee literally writes the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Lawnaut (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As "Thomas M. Cooley Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School", he meets the requirements at WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Federal Practice & Procedure is pretty much the go-to book in introductory civil procedure in US law schools; or at least it was for a decade or two. JohnInDC (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter (lecture) @ 11:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Taylor (basketball)[edit]

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

Individual received media attention solely because of the events of a single basketball game, and as a athlete at a small, otherwise non-noteworthy university, has no other claims of notability. His achievement of a record does not automatically confer notability. Grsz 11 03:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia:NCOLLATH specifically states that college athletes Are notable if they "Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.". Taylor set the single game scoring mark for all divisions - this achievement is the highest total achieved in any college basketball game ever in any classification in over 100 years of competition. Additionally, Taylor's US coverage over this achievement has been covered by even major non-sports news agencies and has been commented upon by Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and others. Rikster2 (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rikster, I have not yet researched this AfD to the extent I normally do, but I do note that WP:NCOLLATH imparts a presumption of notability if, among other things, the player "established a major Division I (NCAA) record." Grinnell University sports teams compete in NCAA Division III, not Division I. I think it's important that we start this AfD with full and accurate facts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - yes, the section I bolded specifically states that. This record is all divisions and frankly, if any record in basketball is notable it's a scoring reord. This would never have gotten the press it did if he'd grabbed some ungodly number of rebounds or assists. There are less than 5 people who have scored 100+ points in any official college game. Rikster2 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster, WP:NCOLLATH specifically requires a "major Division I record," not an "all-divisions record." It may very well be that the subject satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but any reliance on WP:NCOLLATH is clearly misplaced. The subject scored 138 points against a team from Faith Baptist Bible College, a member of the National Christian College Athletic Association (NCCAA) Division 2, not the NCAA or even the NAIA. The NCCAA includes small Christian colelges that are otherwise too small to qualify for NCAA or NAIA membership. The circumstances under which this record were set are a bit like a large high school team beating the crap out of an undersized team from a junior high school. Yes, it's an NCAA record, but it's not a Division I record, and it's not what is explicitly required by WP:NCOLLATH. Let's focus this AfD discussion on whether the subject meets WP:GNG, as we should in the absence of any applicable specific notability guideline. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue both the achievement and the coverage it spurred (for a reason) are notable. The coverage was there because he's the first guy in over 50 years to go over 100 in any official game (regardless of competition) and beat the old record by more than 20 points. The press has followed the achievement because it is so rare. Rikster2 (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclaimer: I started this article.) While the guideline - not rule - says Division I, in a strong sense, "all" supercedes Division I. In any case, as Rister2 has noted, this event has generated a lot of media attention. On a side note: to call Grinnell "a small, otherwise non-noteworthy university" is inaccurate: Grinnell is a small college (not university) that is noteworthy in a number of ways outside of sports. Kdammers (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kdammers, most of us appreciate candor, and the author of an article is entitled to express his opinion at AfD just like any other Wikipedia editor in good standing, especially if he expresses valid reasons based in Wikipedia policy and sound logic. With regard to WP:NCOLLATH, it is intentionally written the way it is for a reason: in short, level of competition. To be perfectly blunt, NCAA Division I sports competition is almost universally of a higher level than that of Division II and III. Only in rare circumstances will an individual college athlete at the Division II or III level prove himself to be competing at an equal or higher level compared to the best athletes in Division I. That having been said, I believe that there is more than enough mainstream medial coverage of this record to justify including this subject in Wikipedia per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. The only reason I have not registered a "keep" vote yet is that I wanted to check on the application of the "one event" exception per WP:BLP1E, and also to see how we had handled other college-level record-setters in similar circumstances. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say there is no strong sense that a record among all levels supercedes that of Division I. The level of competition is nowhere near comparable even between two Division III teams. In this case, the opponent was of far lower quality, having less students than Jack Taylor's high school. I haven't been able to find any mention of the record by the NCAA. One would think that if their record was broken they would at least make some mention. I'm not sure what their criteria is, but do they recognize records against non-NCAA opponents? Grsz 11 14:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for grins, here is the article from NCAA.com on Taylor "Crushing" the previous NCAA mark: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2012-11-20/taylor-crushes-ncaa-single-game-scoring-record-25-points Apparently, Taylor broke 6 other NCAA records in the game. Rikster2 (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grsz, as I pointed out above, the application of WP:NCOLLATH is moot. It does not apply. If you are seeking to support your AfD nomination, I suggest that you focus on the subject's notability per WP:GNG or other bases for a valid AfD. Per WP:GNG, the level of competition and NCAA recognition, if any, of the record mean very little; notability will be determined by the quantity and quality of reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since Taylor is the NCAA record holder, there's going to be long-term interest in what he accomplished, so it seems like a good idea to cover him in Wikipedia, even if he never goes on to the pros. People will want to have something more than just an entry in a list. In this particular case, I'm not too concerned about BLP1E. He didn't commit a crime, or anything like that, and moving the page to Jack Taylor's 138 point game seems unnecessarily complicated. I should note that Grinnell College is actually one of the better-known DIII colleges, even in a basketball context. Because of their style of play, they'd been featured on ESPN in the past: [27] They're certainly not Duke or UNC, but there is interest in the program. All of their stats will be available online, so we know that we'll at least be able to expand the article to summarize the rest of his college career. (But I'm sure there will eventually be some sort of "Where are they now?" article about him.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I'm not going to cite NCOLLATH due to others lawyering its word choice in notability criteria, but Jack Taylor garnered so much media coverage that he personally led off SportsCenter the morning after he scored 138 points. He's received international attention (or scrutiny, depending on one's opinion) for this achievement, and he plays for one of the best-known Division III basketball programs due to their insane style of offensive play. His 138 points shattered Bevo Francis' record by over 20 points, one which was thought to be unbreakable, and at this point Taylor's record will likely stand for eternity (who honestly thinks someone will come along and score 139?). It's premature to add this to AfD, especially because for the rest of this season Taylor (and Grinnell, probably) will garner continued media coverage beyond a ONEEVENT situation. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E would be the strongest reason to merge or delete, but the policy applies "only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Scoring the most points in NCAA history, even if it wasn't in Division I, differentiates him from being low-profile based on the media's fascination with the historic achievement. Articles still being written almost a week later. Pretty confident that GNG will be obvious years from now even if one argues that it hasn't been already.—Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've since expanded and added additional sources to the article, and believe it has been demonstrated to meet WP:GNG. The subject is receiving significant coverage over multiple days—these are not trivial mentions syndicated by a single news source that is part of a one-day news blip.—Bagumba (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have very different opinions on what constitutes significant coverage over multiple-days. A follow-up article about the fact that he was mediocre the next game or about how he still goes to class, from a local news source no less, is not significant coverage. Grsz 11 20:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. I think this is pretty clear cut, especially since the record was produced by the gimmick system Grinnell runs. The fact that a teammate who held the previous record scored only seven point in this game shows that. Everyone is pointing out that the event received significant coverage, but BLP1E specifically calls out this case in that these reliable sources are only covering him for this one game. There are followup articles, but only comparing this game to the previous game. If the 138-point game never happened, he'd never be getting followup stories. Everyone is also pointing out that this is the ALL DIVISION NCAA record. This doesn't seem to be a valid point to me, since it was against inferior competition. It's like if I scored 138 points in the driveway against my sister. There's no way I could score that many against a high school team. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of clarification, so that people don't get confused, the teammate mentioned above (Griffin Lentsch) held the DIII record, but not the overall NCAA scoring record. (And while Lentsch did score 89 points, that's still 49 points behind Taylor.) It is true that Taylor had the benefit of a quirky strategy and an inferior opponent, but a record is a record. He's going to be in sports reference books no matter what. Zagalejo^^^ 06:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a sports reference book. We don't have articles just because somebody broke a record, however dubious the accomplishment. I think the follow-up article after the next game saying he only scored 21 points is strong evidence that Taylor will fade into obscurity within a matter of weeks. Grsz 11 15:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, once a topic has received significant coverage it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Please review the updated article for the expanded content and range of coverage over multiple days.—Bagumba (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the coverage is only there only because of the 183 point game. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per BLP1E, articles on a person are OK in "the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented". There is no reason to override GNG in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for sake of completeness, here's the rest of the text from BLP1E: "...as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." I don't think the event is significant. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your "range of coverage over multiple days" is a bunch of articles one day, then a few after the next game. Is the national media going to write an article about him every week now for the rest of the season? Doubtful. Grsz 11 20:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG kEEP. I think the article answered my questions and is well-written and it would be stupid to eliminate it. This is something people want to know. I went to Wikipedia to read it and I would have been disappointed if I had not found it. Dewie Gaul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.223.56 (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If the 138-point game never happened, he'd never be getting followup stories" - Yeah - beacuse the 138 point game was an all-time record for points in a college basketball game! Honestly, I find the voiced concerns that the record isn't notable because of the system Grinnell playes or the level of competition ridiculous. In 100+ years of college basketball play, thousands of players have played against overmatched opponents and many have played in offensive oriented systems (the all time single game scoring record against a D1 opponent is held by Kevin Bradshaw, who played in almost the exact same type of system at US International). Did Grinnell actively try to get Taylor the record? Absolutely, but ANY player who gets that number of points had that kind of help. Heck, when Wilt scored 100, the Warriors intentionally fouled the Knicks in the fourth quarter just to get the ball back so they could feed Wilt again. Not in their best competitive interest, but they did it. No, Wikipedia isn't a Sports Almanac, but we also aren't talking about some Assist/Turnover record either. This is the most points in an official college basketball game EVER, one of 4 100+ point games in college basketball history EVER, and the highest single game point total in US basketball history - college, high school or pro - EVER. The comparisons to a high school team against a junior high team or scoring points on one's sister in the driveway are amusing, but off base. The record was obtained by a college player in a regulation game against another college (not junior college, not prep school, not high school, not JV) team. I think it is a no-brainer that a short article on the all-time record holder for college basketball's highest-profile individual record should exist. Rikster2 (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, you probably shouldn't be calling other arguments "ridiculous". Second, as pointed out above, the opponent is a member of the National Christian College Athletic Association -- and Division II at that. Also, the game was an exhibition for Faith Baptist Bible College. The level of competition is definitely in question to me here. — X96lee15 (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you shouldn't make snarky comments like comparing this to playing your sister but instead just stick to your points. When a ridiculous argument is made, I will feel free to point that out. And the level of competition doesn't stop this from being recognized by the NCAA as the all-time record, as evidenced by the story from the NCAA's own site. I didn't say it wasn't a factor in the point total, I said it makes no difference to the siginificance of the achievement from a historical standpoint - and it doesn't Rikster2 (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop calling other's arguments ridiculous. I was making a comparison to a real-world situation so that people not familiar with the NCAA and NCCAA would understand the disparity in the level of competition during this exhibition game. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, not an exhibition game for Grinnell. This is evidenced not only by the NCAA counting the scoring output as the all time record, but they clearly count the Faith Baptist game as part of the school's overall record here, and the conference and school do the same. additionally, while they do mark the Grinnell game as an exhibition on their schedule (every non NCCAA game seems to be marked as such - probably because it helps their statistics), Faith Baptist seems to count David Larson's 70 points in the game their new school record - a highly unusual move if they truly saw the game as an exhibition. But regardless, the game was legit enough for the NCAA (the largest governing body of the sport in the US and the one that governs Grinnell College) to count the feat as the all division record - which IMO renders biases to the contrary moot. Rikster2 (talk)

Keep. Having reviewed the sources available regarding the subject to date, I am satisfied that he and/or his record satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I was less convinced that the subject was not a "one-hit" wonder, subject to the "one event" exception per WP:BLP1E. However, please note the following quoted language from WP:BLP1E: "some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event." This exception to the "one event" exception seems to cover exactly this sort of notable sports event. I might also add that I explored whether Wikipedia has an appropriate "list of" article that includes American college basketball record-holders; we do not. So, congratulations, Mr. Jack Taylor, I think you get to have your very own Wikipedia article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete. Closing early, but it looks like this has received adequate scrutiny. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oscillant[edit]

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

The article title appears to be a neologism. The provided references are respectively, a playpark action group (author appears to be article author), Wikibooks, the Ardrossan & Saltcoats Herald, Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia which do not establish this as a verified term or notable topic. Further discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#"Oscillant" Melburnian (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several plant editors have searched and failed to find any reliable sources for this word, or even for the concept that it describes. See the discussion mentioned above to see a longer discussion. The author of the Wikipedia page admits that he also wrote the only non-wiki 'source,' which is a bloggish local park page. He says that he heard the term from someone else. I would love to be proven wrong, but there is so much that is dubious about this. There just isn't a single legitimate referenced usage of this term, anywhere, as it is used in this article. First Light (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absent a reliable source, delete. If the phenomenon is real (and it seems plausible), and if there is a term used in reliable sources, that information will eventually come to light, and the article can be re-created.--Curtis Clark (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#"Oscillant", the words of the creator of the article reveal it to be based on original research, with no reliable source used as its foundation. As per Curtis, if the phenomenon is real, the article can be re-created at a later date, should a reliable source be found that provides a proper foundation. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's author just retitled and moved the page to Oscillatory pools, editing it only to change the name and remove any references. By making the title descriptive, my opinion doesn't change—it still needs references from reliable sources. First Light (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author can find reliable sources to support this. Tdslk (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't matter what the new name is, the content is original research and Wikipedia is not the place for it yet, per WP:OR. When/if it gets covered in reliable sources first, then we can have an article. --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of RS. Imc (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally if it is helpful to the author in finding RS, discussions can be found about tree movement causing ground to lose its consistency, e.g. see 'porridge'. There is research into the loss of root stability in trees, since this has serious insurance ramifications (e.g. search for 'windthrow', and also look through the previously mentioned discussion list). However none of this seems to have raised the idea of water being pumped to the surface by root movement. Imc (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the urban dictionary. I have a feeling that someone is literally going through the urban dictionary and creating wikipedia pages to boost their creation count. I wish there was a speedy delete tag that we could use for these. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by PianoDan (talk • contribs) 16:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle D. Logue[edit]

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

None of the provided sources (nor any of the others obvious in google) give an iota of in depth coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. He has twice been cited as an 'also ran' in US tax law citations, 1 and 2, but they appear not to have garnered him any in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added more sources. Notable academic. Lawnaut (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you to read the WP:GNG against which we measure notability, in particular the bit about "receiv[ing] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Stuartyeates (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the article. It meets and exceeds not only the general notability guideline, but also the professor-specific guideline. Lawnaut (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets provision 5 of WP:PROF as "Wade H. and Dores M. McCree Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School." I remind the nominator that this is explicitly an alternative to the GNG for academics. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per named chair at major law school, noted by DGG -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Phalia. Merge and redirect to Phalia (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghoganwali[edit]

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

I cannot find any evidence that this place exists. While all human habitations are default notable, we need at least 1 reference (even a set of coordinates in an almanac) to verify that this is a stand-alone unit, not either 1) something made up or 2) just a local name without official status (like many neighborhoods in the US, which must meet GNG). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phalia. From these ( [28], [29]) sources I find that at least this article is not a hoax and this place do exists, but neither of these sources are acceptable for inclusion in the article. Since there is no policy/guideline that suggests deletion in this case, I think its better to redirect it to its larger subdivision. --SMS ^Talk 17:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: as per SMS. Verified but non-notable subdivision of an inhabited place. (The actual content of the article, other than the statement the this place exists, is perhaps suspect.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 16:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator ([30]) (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T.R.A.S.H. (Tubes Rarities and Smash Hits)[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS; I can confirm that the album exists based on a quick google search, but cannot find any coverage of it that's not someone selling it...perhaps a merger to the group's main article would work, except that there's really nothing to merge. Thus, I would hereby nominate this article for deletion. Go Phightins! 02:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a review at Allmusic, and a brief piece from SPIN. I'm sure that this would have been covered in print sources back in 1981. At the very least it should be merged to the main article. --Michig (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an official Greatest Hits package of a major label band (A&M, I believe) and was certainly the subject of multiple reviews at the time of release. It's a pre-internet release, so a quick Googley Boogelly isn't probably going to find reviews in Rolling Stone, New Music Express, etc. — but rest assured that they are there. If anybody's got the Christgau record guide handy, there is probably coverage in that as well... Carrite (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's expansion. There's enough coverage in reliable sources (Allmusic, Spin, Billboard) to meet WP:NALBUMS. The album also charted, albeit not very highly, on the main Billboard 200. Gongshow ^Talk 02:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's current expanded state shows that WP:NALBUMS is met. Good work guys. — sparklism ^hey! 08:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Yup, it now satisfies the criteria, and therefore I withdraw my nomination. Go Phightins! 20:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Vice-presidential selection. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012[edit]

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

Now that the election is over, this article is truly unnecessary. The people listed in the article were never "candidates" in any way, but rather prominent Republicans whose names were mentioned by media pundits. The article is just what the media saw in their WP:CRYSTALBALL, not encyclopedic material. Besides my opposition to the inclusion of the meaningless prognostications of the media's talking heads—several of these "candidates" had clearly declined interest months before the announcement, and others (Trump) are nonsense—there is no need for a separate article for this information. Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Vice-presidential selection could easily be expanded with prose with what information isn't already there, as well as a few shortlisted candidates; a photo gallery is unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 02:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a notable topic, researched, cited. Concerns about speculation now are moot. Whether or not vice presidents "run" is irrelevant (Constitution says yes). Shadowjams (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One expects a "candidate" to have been nominated for an office, or to actively seek it. The crystal-ball media speculation that Romney might pick one of these names does not constitute their candidacy. Very few persons have actually ever announced that they want to be picked as vice president. (Endicott Peabody was one who did, in 1972. Edison (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of people who were considered to be potential candidates is an instructive thing to have and it belongs on an encyclopedia. AutomaticStrikeout (Evidence) 01:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it wasn't all media based and there was campaigning for the position, yes but its not the case here. Secret ^account 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides WP:USEFUL and WP:UNENCYC and the fact the the key potential candidates can be merged, this is just media speculation of prominent politicians, not necessarily those actually considered by Mr. Romney. His considerations are best on his campaign article. Reywas92^Talk 00:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete Edison is right on here. This is the exact definition of original research, a race does not exist for the vice president of the United States. There's isn't really much campaigning and so forth for the job. The presidential nominee is the one who decides to become his vice presidential running mate. This article is just media speculation on who Romney might select for vice president or politicians stating they may be interested if picked. That's not what Wikipedia is used for. If there was actual campaigning for the job, it's a clear keep of course, but there wasn't as far as we know, if there was that's a whole different news story (and article) of course. Secret ^account 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your problem is purely with the relationship of the title to the material, and the article title is poorly chosen and inaccurate. The content itself is not original research because it is merely reporting on verifiable reports on and media commentary about Romney's choice for a running mate, so if this were to continue to exist as a separate article that issue would be cured by retitling to something like Selection of Republican Party vice presidential candidate, 2012. postdlf (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this ceases to be of encyclopedic value now that the election is over, because a major party candidate's campaign decisions are of lasting historical importance. WP:CRYSTALBALL is also inapplicable because this isn't unverifiable Wikipedia editor speculation, but rather in the vein of "[p]redictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field..." That said, this probably could be merged to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, by condensing the whole media speculation section into a prose paragraph or two. Cataloging every name ever thrown out there is excessive and unnecessary, let alone expanding it into a picture gallery. Instead, the main names considered should be discussed with attribution, and maybe a "other possibilities considered were X, Y, and Z" sentence or two. The sections on the campaign selection process and on the announcement should definitely stay (in whichever article these end up) and perhaps be expanded, as that's the real substance of the topic. If kept separately, this should also be renamed per my comment above as the current title is an inaccurate description. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One further observation: major media outlets are themselves major players in U.S. presidential campaigns, particularly since much of the "speculation" they are reporting on is not simply a trivial game of trying to guess an outcome, but instead made by pundits or other politicians who are deliberately trying to influence the selection process or public opinion about the campaign, or even the result of campaign leaks to test the waters with various names (all of which I am confident could ultimately be explained and sourced). The very act of discussing the VP selection by these media outlets inevitably influences the selection and reaction to it and so is part of the history of the election. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 as detailed by User:Postdlf. Per Postdlf's arguments, the content has lasting encyclopedic value, but probably not so much as to justify an entire article (and certainly not a picture gallery!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddcm8991 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem I have with this article is that it confuses announced, rumored, and never-serious candidates. It also confuses candidacy to be Romney's VP-candidate with candidacy in the presidential election. A bit about vice-president considerations under the 2012 presidential election/campaign articles would suffice. This article is more rumor than fact, and not encyclopedia by a stretch.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existence of other articles and per those above. Royal Mate1 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which other articles? WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:PERNOM. Reywas92^Talk 00:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With rare exceptions (e.g. Mike Gravel in 1972), people do not "run" for the vice presidential nomination and thus are not "candidates". The article just collects a lot of media speculation, all of which is irrelevant since the only view that mattered was Romney's and he only seriously considered a handful of people. Some of the entries put in the article show a complete lack of understanding of American politics on the part of the WP editors involved: for example, there was never even a remote chance that Romney would pick Rand Paul or Nikki Haley or Donald Trump (!). So both the rationale for the article (there are candidates) and the content of the article (who the candidates were) are completely off-base. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Per Wasted Time R. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borgess Run for the Health of It[edit]

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

Extremely weak local references that I do not think amount to notability. Other references merely relate to the concept of jogging. Arrived here through the afc process; I would not have accepted it. We need some way of sending afc acceptances through NPP so they will be more visible. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage that I could find is limited to Kalamazoo only. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 20 November 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, —Theo polisme 02:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable 5k race like thousands of others with only local coverage. -Drdisque (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Nagai[edit]

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

BLP without verifiable and reliable independent third party sources with significant coverage. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I did find this regarding her retirement, but that's about all I found, and that doesn't satisfy WP:GNG in my book, therefore I must !vote delete. Go Phightins! 03:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to verify notability or justify a biographical article. The corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article is actually even more poorly sourced. --DAJF (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than the source given above, sources don't seem to be forthcoming. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This site Should be approved I made links of many referenca newly about film and TV dorama.So this site should be approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mori5racing (talk • contribs) 09:33, 27 November 2012‎

— Note to closing admin: Mori5racing (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This site Should be approved Are you Japanese ? If you don't live in Japan,I think that you can't really understand value of her works.TV dorama Mito komon is one of the most famouce TV dorama in Japan.

Araki and Shinoyama are very famouce photographer.So her works is very valuable.I can't underastand that you try to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mori5racing (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, in Japan and throughout the world. Qworty (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This site Should be approved Hi,Qworty.What do you know about Japanese show business seane ?

Where do you lives ?Your opinion is empty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mori5racing (talk • contribs) 11:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read WP:N. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: she was apparently featured in an issue of a magazine called "Pink Vision" in 2001, for whatever it's worth[31]. I for one think the article should be kept because there's no way a Japanese celebrity appearing in this many TV shows and having appeared in several 写真集's hasn't been featured in plentiful of print publications from the time.126.25.72.235 (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube statistics[edit]

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

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, criteria 3: Excessive listings of statistics. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've read your consideration for deletion of this article (YouTube statistics) and I was wondering what exactly does violate the WP:INDISCRIMINATE, criteria 3: Excessive listings of statistics. Is it the small amount of text (which shouldn't be a problem, if I look at the article like this, or this or is it the table with the listing of the top 30 YouTube channels (which I think is relevant to the topic)? Thanks, Michal Smetana (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I have considered that the topic, overall, fails to meet notability guidelines. Has any source discussed all the statistics of YouTube as a whole? Or how the most viewed channels have evolved? Also, why did you only add the "Number of Uploaded Video Views"? Why not sorting this too by channel subscription? or by number of videos? or by most watched video? [I can go on...] — Ṟ Ṉ™ 23:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with analysis by Michal.smetana (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The "Traffic", "Mobile and Devices" and "Social" sections can be merged to YouTube. Statυs (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Were to to keep the top 30,000, I would agree that it is indiscriminate. But the top 30 is as much encyclopedic as any other such list of the biggest--as much WP content as world-class athletic records or lists of largest cities. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 24 November 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, Go Phightins! 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the references are to youtube sources. If it is rewritten from independent reliables sources, as required by WP:GNG, ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Excessive statistics, citing YouTube instead of reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE concerns. TBr and ley 08:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Nomination withdrawn. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orlo Epps[edit]

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

~~Does not appear to be notable although I'm not 100%.~~ C6541 (T↔C) 00:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First reference establishes notability, although the only fact pulled from that page was Orlo Epps' birth and death information. If some information from that reference was pulled into the Wikipedia article, then this article wouldn't be up for deletion, but that's an argument I've brought up over and over again and I don't even want to get involved in it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is brand new. AfD came less than 10 minutes after article was created. There do appear to be a number of sources covering him as a significant architect. See, e.g., biography at the Biographical Dictionary of North Carolina Architects & Builders here and obituary from The New York Times here. Cbl62 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cbl62 Vacation^nine 00:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree, retract. C6541 (T↔C) 00:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Infosys Limited#History. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K. Dinesh[edit]

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

Person whose only claim to being notable is being a) rich and b) being one of seven co-founders of Infosys. Unlike the other founders who have gone on to do many notable things outside of Infosys, this person has done little. While the company is most definitely notable, I don't believe that this person is. (Note - I have also nominated Kris Gopalakrishnan for the exact same reason). Biker Biker (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:24, 18 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Infosys_Limited#History - Yes, he has achieved a Forbes ranking but it is only #63 and, aside from that, it seems he is mainly known for his InfoSys position and all of the relevant Google News archives results support this. Google Books provided this result through an InfoSys business profile which supports his education details and this book which provides additional details such as personal life, education, estimated net worth and his first name, Krishaswamy. SwisterTwister talk 01:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of news and current affairs programmes broadcast by MediaCorp Channel 8[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 10:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:24, 18 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of notability, no English-language significant coverage in reliable sources, as far as I can tell. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. History has been preserved at Talk:University of Victoria/University of Victoria Computer Science Department to allow information to be merged. However, only a small amount of information could be merged due to WP:UNDUE considerations. Spinning Spark 20:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Victoria Computer Science Department[edit]

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

An Individual department in a good quality research university. No evidence of particular notability. Our usual standard is to be one of the half-dozen or so highest ranking departments in the world, (or , equivalently, of world-famous.) I note the only 3rd party references are to various faculty publications-- except for the most famous departments, this will usually be the case, which is why they almost always fail notability

No evidence of particular distinction even within the country. Lists of research groups, and joint programs is not encyclopedic content. There is nothing here that is not covered in the departments web site. and almost everything about the academic program will be of interest only to students there or prospective students.

To anticipate a possible argument, having a few notable faculty is not sufficient: since most full professors at major research universities in the world have been judged notable here, using such a standard would make every department in every research university notable. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a policy of doing that, but it is not our present practice. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I looked it several times when it still was on top of the pages needed patrol list, and I was thinking whether it needs to be AfDed. I support the deletion according to the nom arguments, at lest in the present shape of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:30, 18 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fair amount of this is generic information not highly relevant for a WP article (programs), and the rest can be merged to the university article. Reywas92^Talk 02:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Can merge with University article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Victoria. Article refs indicate Mary Sanseverino may be notable. Can't find independent refs establishing particular notability of the department. There are already sections for other departments in the proposed merge target. -—Kvng 05:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Queen's article of same-day AfD, not a world-class or even nationally outstanding department. Enough to mention in university article.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UC 3 (album)[edit]

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

Faisl to meet WP:NALBUMS. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - This album by the Norwegian Jazz Trio Urban Connection is a complite Jazz recording, receiving brilliant reviews by Norwegian critques:
Lauvland Pettersen, Tomas (2005-12-13). "Urban Connection: UC 3". Listen to Norway Ballade.no. Retrieved 2012-11-18.

"Urban Connection 21. mars på Kroa" (in Norwegian). SortlandJazz.no. 2012-02-21. Retrieved 2012-11-18.

"StaJazz: Urban Connection 27.03.2012" (in Norwegian). StaJazz.no. 2012-02-21. Retrieved 2012-11-18.

Editorial (2012-04-01). "Urban Connection til Vossajazz 2013". Vossajazz.no. Retrieved 2012-10-31. Listen to it, and you will understand ... Best wishes Knuand (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 19 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NALBUMS as it hasn't received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That the author think it is a good album confers no notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still out showing your "good intentions" ... You say "you have nothing against me personally" ... but, what do you have against Urban Connection', have you even heard about them before? Cheers, Knuand (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

How come Mentoz86 allways wote for deletion of my entries? Knuand (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Struck multiple !vote - Bwilkins - ... Some people newer learn ... This album by Urban Connection is splended! The norwegian magazin Puls reviewer Tor Hammerø comments:

"Alle som har hørt bandet live - enten på egen hånd eller for eksempel sammen med Michael Brecker under fjorårets Moldejazz - vet hvilken energibombe dette er, og UC 3 gir oss ytterligere bekreftelse på at bandet er i fortsatt vekst." (Anyone that has heard the band live - either on their own or as with Michael Brecker during last year's Moldejazz - know the energy bomb this is and UC 3 provides a further confirmation that the band is still growing. - My translation) and further more:

"... men de vet også å bevare intensiteten når de tar'n ned. Hvis vi skuer vidt for å finne en referanse eller to, vil Charles Mingus' lidenskapelige og kompromissløse måte å skape og tenke musikk på absolutt være relevant. (... but they also know to maintain the intensity when they take it down. If we look far to find a reference or two, Charles Mingus' passionate and uncompromising way to create and think music certainly would be relevant. - My translation) and:

"Urban Connection har akkurat gjort unna ei ukes turné i England og i oktober står Canada, Japan, Kina, Nepal, Sør Afrika og Baltikum for tur. Urban Connection er på alle vis klar for verden og verden har mye å glede seg til. (... Urban Connection have just done a weeklong tour of England and they move on in October, to Canada, Japan, China, Nepal, South Africa and the Baltics. Urban Connection is in all respects ready for the world and the world has much to look forward to. - My translation)

Hammerø, Tor (2004-09-28). "Urban Connection: UC 3" (in Norwegian). Puls.no. Retrieved 2012-11-25.Knuand (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Knuand (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. Relisted! Knuand (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer John Fordham of The Guardian states: "... Urban Connection turned out to have strong connections to the early acoustic ensembles of Ornette Coleman. Led by the imperious, hard-strumming bass sound of Steinar Raknes (a virtuoso with Charlie Haden and Jimmy Garrison associations), driven by the edgy, active drumming of Hakon Mjaset Johansen and featuring Frode Nymo's alto sax, the group sounded like a trio of long-time partners and restless risk-takers looking for adventure..."

Fordham, John (2004-09-16). "Dave O'Higgins - Pizza Express Jazz Club, London". The Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-11-25.Knuand (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To throw out meaningless statements about articles failing to meet WP:NALBUMS because of lack of reliable sources is Malicious attempts to destroy the work of others! You should seek for sourses yourself, before stating that there is non. If an article does'n cite references, is not the same as failing WP:NALBUMS... Knuand (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer Josef Woodard from the the prestigious jazz journal Down Beat comments: " ... Another fresh-sounding Norwegian act on the bill was the increasingly popular Urban Connection, an acoustic chordless trio with bass, sax and drums, finding its way between lyricism, tighten-up funk and post-bopping gymnastics. They assert a cool, nimble collective vibe. ... " Woodard, Josef (2012-06-05). "Bold Risk-Taking Elevates Vossa Jazz". Down Beat. Retrieved 2012-11-28. Knuand (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers from ECS Nepal, when Urban Connection just after the release of UC 3 wisited the Jazzmandu festival 2004, states: " ... Urban Connection from Norway blew our minds away with their incredible improvisation and delightful techniques. Steinar Raknes playing the double bass with drums sticks left the audience in awe. Frode Nymo on saxophone was unstoppable and simply amazing. ... " Bomjan, Baishali; Rai, Dinesh (April 2004). "Jazzmandu 2004 - Putting Kathmandu on the International Jazz Circuit". ECS Nepal. Retrieved 2012-11-28. Knuand (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bassist review: " ... Steinar Raknes is one of Norway’s foremost jazz bassists and songwriters. With his fearless and explosive playing style, he is often compared with the legendary bassist and songwriter Charles Mingus. Many know Raknes through his work as composer and musician in the award-winning jazz trio Urban Connection, and for collaborations with artists such as Chick Corea, Michael Brecker, Steve Grossman and Per Texas Johansson. ... " "Jazz Bassist Review Article". Lastfm.fr. Retrieved 2012-11-28. Knuand (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The renowned Norwegian radio host and executive critic Erling Wicklund at NRK, comments: " ... Trioen Urban Connection er ute med sin tredje CD «UC3». Og musikken er ekstatisk, men ikke uproblematisk. ... På sin tredje CD prøver de å løfte seg ennå noen hakk mot ekstasen, og klarer det på et vis. Problemet er bare at når man starter i femte gir, hvor skal man da gå? ... " (The trio Urban Connection is out with their third album, «UC3». And the music is ecstatic, but not unproblematic. ... On their third album they try to lift themselves yet a few notches toward ecstasy, and manage it in a way. The problem is that when one starts in fifth gear, where should one go? - My translation). Wicklund, Erling (2004-10-01). "Forrykende ekstatisk" (in Norwegian). NRK.no. Retrieved 2012-11-30. Knuand (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer of the Norwegian newspaper Adresseavisen rated the album dice 5, and states: " ... Urban Connections tredje album er ikke musikk for folk med tynnslitte nerver. Sant å si kommer nok denne musikken best til sin rett når man er på hugget i en tett og svett jazzklubb. Men for den som er i god form og som liker saksofontoner som flerrer gjennom lufta, fungerer trioen utmerket også på cd. På sitt tredje album fortsetter bandet å rendyrke sin egen form for 60-tallsjazz. ... Enkelte ganger spiller Frode Nymo, Håkon Mjåset Johansen og bandets komponist, bassist Steinar Raknes bortimot brutalt, men til gjengjeld roer de ned med noen delikate ballader der de viser at de også behersker lyriske melodier. Da får vi igjen pusten og gleder oss til neste utblåsning, som alltid er like rundt hjørnet. ... " (Urban Connections third album is not music for people with frayed nerves. To tell the truth this music will probably provide the right when one is on a roll in a tight and sweaty jazz club. But for those who are in good shape and like saxophone tones that flutter into the air, the trio works excellent also on CD. On their third album, the band continues to cultivate its own brand of 60s jazz. ... Sometimes Frode Nymo, Mjåset Håkon Johansen and the band's composer, bassist Steinar Raknes plays almost brutally, but in return they calm down with some delicate ballads in which they show that they also masters the lyrical melodies. Then we get our breath back, and look forward to the next blow out, which is always just around the corner. - My translation). "Full gass og fine melodier" (in Norwegian). Adresseavisen. Retrieved 2012-11-30. Knuand (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer Geir Dahle of the Norwegian newspaper Bergens Tidende rated the album dice 4, and comments: " ... Som tittelen indikerer er dette plate nummer tre fra Urban Connection - bandet som ble utropt til Årets Unge Jazzmusikere for seks år siden. Den spillesugne og verdensvante troikaen serverer også denne gangen akustisk triomusikk med røffe kanter og drevet frem av energi. ... " (As the title indicates, this is album number three from Urban Connection - the band was declared the Young Jazz Musicians of the Year six years ago (1998). The play eager and cosmopolitan troika also this time serve an acoustic trio based energy driven music with rough edges. - My translation). Dahle, Geir (2004-10-20). "Fastlåst runddans" (in Norwegian). Bergens Tidende. Retrieved 2012-11-30. Knuand (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly weak keep. May have received sufficient coverage to be considered notable, although several of the sources cited in the article are not reliable. A merge to the article on the group is a possibility, along with the articles on the group's other two albums, which have minimal content beyond tracklistings. --Michig (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The review by the Norwegian newspaper Smaalenenes Avis awarded the album dice 4, and comments: " ... Urban Connection har spilt sammen i mange år, noe som virkelig kommer til uttrykk i musikken på denne plata. Her er åtte orginallåter tuftet på improvisasjon i fyrrig og heftig samspill hvor lidenskap og dyktighet går hånd i hånd... " (Urban Connection has been around for many years, which really is reflected in the music on this album. The eight original songs are rooted in improvisation, with fiery and intense interaction of the musicians, where passion and excellence go hand in hand. - My translation). "Impro-groove" (in Norwegian). Smaalenenes Avis. 2004-11-25. Retrieved 2012-12-02. Knuand (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The review by the Norwegian student paper Universitas states: " ... For det spraker og trøkker og bopper i massevis når de nå går ut i et åpnere landskap hvor dynamikken skapes i et friere uttrykk... " (The music crackles and kicks with bebop in loads, as they mowe out into a more open musical landscape, where the dynamics are obtained in a freer expression. - My translation). Husby, Dag Stian (2004-10-06). "Hårreisende nybop pluss". Universitas. Retrieved 2012-12-02. Knuand (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The review by Mahesh Sajnani of the magazine Nepali Times states: " ... UC is inspired by the music of the 50s and 60s - hard bop/free bop as well as world music/folk music and the 70s jazz-rock. The band's expression is energetic, groovy and tight, and their music, which is original, is presented with a virility and freshness that is hard to find today... " Sajnani, Mahesh (2004-11-19). "Norwegian jazz group revisits Nepal". Nepali Times. Retrieved 2012-12-02. Knuand (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Nepali Times article, if it is even a reliable source, barely say anything about this album. Several brief reviews in reliable sources suggest that the album is worth covering here but I still feel a merge to the group article might be the best approach. You have flooded this discussion with examples of coverage but it would be more useful to identify (and provide links to) a few sources that are genuinely reliable and also give the album coverage beyond brief reviews and mentions. --Michig (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It say something about the band Urban Connection, and their performance at the time of the UC 3 release. It also documents tours, partly resultant of the album. Knuand (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puls is a major Norwegian music magazin (see also). Experienced reviewer Tor Hammerø at Puls, has in a thorough review of UC 3 pointed out that: " ... Nå er energibomba Urban Connection på plass igjen med sin tredje CD og i mine ører har de aldri vært bedre. Alle låtene - på én har han fått assistanse - er skrevet av evighetsmaskina Steinar Raknes. De som har hatt gleden av å følge Raknes på en av hans konsertmaratoner - f.eks. med Urban Connection raskt etterfulgt av The Core, ikke akkurat noe hvilehjem det heller - har skjønt at gutten er satt sammen av helt spesielle gener... " (Now the energy bomb Urban Connection in ready with their third CD, and to my ears they have never been better. All tunes - one track has been assisted - written by perpetuum Steinar Raknes. Those who have had the pleasure of following Raknes on one of his concert marathons - eg. by Urban Connection quickly followed by The Core, not exactly a rest home there either - have reasoned that the boy has been put together by special genes. - My translation) Hammerø, Tor (2004-09-28). "Urban Connection: UC 3" (in Norwegian). Puls.no. Retrieved 2012-11-25. Knuand (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there used to be a Puls print magazine but it's now a webzine. Is that correct? If so, that looks like a decent example of coverage. --Michig (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, it has had several periods as paper magazin, and by many Norwegians, including myself, considered the leading musical magasin in Norway in the late 70s (and the following decades). Knuand (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are three ratings by Norwegian newspapers, one dayly local newspaper Smaalenenes Avis, and the two leading newspapers outside of Oslo, Adresseavisen in Trondheim and Bergens Tidende, all awarded the album dice 4 or 5. The renowned Norwegian radio host and executive critic Erling Wicklund at NRK, gives UC 3 smashing review. (All refered to above.) Knuand (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there seems to be enough coverage here to write a sourced article. - filelake shoe  13:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article meets notablity and is sourced enough. Urban Connection also notable enough. Outback the koala (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reviews, not taste, are how we evaluate the notability of albums. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are people so concerned about the vote? I thought the main thing was to "generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached". That it is not merely a vote, but a cosensus discussion! Knuand (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amaury Rivas[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. PROD removed with no reason given. Spanneraol (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 18:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Not noteworthy. AutomaticStrikeout 04:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found the following mentions of him which I think at least establish marginal notability: [32], this is in Spanish, but it can be roughly translated, [33] and the following from MLB Trade Rumors, which some would consider reliable, and others would not: [34], [35]. I don't know, it's borderline, but I think that this at least has the potential to be notable. Go Phightins! 00:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The clips from MLB trade rumors are minor mentions only.. not the significant coverage that would be needed for a full article.. The clarksville blurb is just routine game coverage and the other two are minor pieces. Spanneraol (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBASEBALL criterion 6 says that "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" is necessary for an article's subject to be notable. The first three sources, I believe, meet that criterion. The other option I suppose would be to wait until he signs with a team as he's a minor league free agent and add a little bio of him on their minor league players page. If we insist on deleting now, I would appreciate this being userfied so that, when the time comes, it can be added to the appropriate team page. I don't feel strongly about it, but I just think that an argument can be made that he's notable. Go Phightins! 02:43, 15 November 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, —Theo polisme 03:51, 18 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have reviewed the sources cited by Phightins above, and carefully considered Spanneraol's comments. I believe this is a borderline case, and the sources cited vary from trivial transactions column to routine game/season mentions, with one exception. The best source to date which provides some depth of coverage of the subject is an online sports blog. Add that all up, and this subject doesn't quite cross the WP:GNG finish line. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Dirtlawyer1. This is a borderline case, but one just beneath the threshold. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GLOSS FM. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 01:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thornbury FM[edit]

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

Wholly unremarkable local radio station that was terminated without achieving anything notable. Bob Re-born (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Licensed radio broadcasters are generally kept. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ -- a local broadcaster to whom few people are likely to listen. This is the broadcast equivalent of the lcoal free paper, and I do not think we have aritlces on those. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:09, 18 November 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, Go Phightins! 14:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to GLOSS FM and keep per Eastmain and per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GLOSS FM.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GLOSS FM, its successor (leaving the usual redirect). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments based on WP:SPECULATION, WP:NDESC, WP:POVNAMING, and WP:ALLEGED are not grounds for deletion of an article and have consequently been discounted. They may be grounds for cleaning up the article, but this should be taken care of with normal editing. I offer no opinion on whether the article does actually contain these faults and these closing remarks should not be taken as encouraging (or discouraging) any such editing. Arguments based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS are grounds for deletion, but only if the article consists entirely of OR or is otherwise irretrievable. Otherwise it should be merely cleaned up. The majority in this debate argued not only that there was verifiable content, but none of the article was OR. WP:POVFORK is the only policy based argument which would call for outright deletetion, but those bringing this case failed to convince that there is another article which this is a fork of. The only other deletion argument raised is that this is some kind of WP:NOT case, I suppose meaning that political controversies should not be covered in Wikipedia. There is no policy or precedent basis for this position (although I really wish there was because it would save the heartache of a lot of difficult closes like this one). Against this, the keep camp produced strong WP:V and WP:N arguments which have the debate. I recommend that any further AfD brought here in less than six months should be speedy closed. Spinning Spark 19:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article was created a year ago by a now-banned sockmaster. It is a combination of one-WP:POV viewpoints, all clubbed together in a recipe to form a WP:SYNTHESIS piece. There are far too many problems in this article and they have been there for quite a long time and have not been fixed since the last nomination. I do not see why the content present here cannot be discussed in a more concise manner in the main Death of Osama bin Laden article. Moreover, an official US assessment has has concluded that "Pakistan did not know the whereabouts of Al Qaeda leader before the US raid" [36], [37]. In the wake of this conclusion, even "allegations" would not be an entirely impartial term to use; "conspiracy theories" is a better alternative and I see no reason why there should be an article on a stack of conspiracy theories. This is a textbook definition of WP:SOAP, IMO. As I have mentioned earlier, the text here belongs to Death of Osama bin Laden, if it should be mentioned anywhere at all. Mar4d (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Mar4d (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTABLE as these allegations are notable in their own right and as such require an article. Also Pakistan has acknowledged al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden had "support system" in the country, but asserted that the government was unware of his presence on its soil. An Unwinnable War: Australia in Afghanistan 293-294 quoting J Brennan. We are looking right now at how he was able to hold out there for so long and whether or not there was any type of support system within Pakistan that allowed him to stay there, No shortage of sources which discuss this. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Manhunt: From 9/11 to Abbottabad - the Ten-Year Search for Osama bin Laden discusses these allegations, bin Laden must have had Pakistan support network, says Obama Obama presses Pakistan over Bin Laden's support network Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you mention is dated a day after the operation and is not "Pakistan" acknowledging, but is rather the opinion of Hussain Haqqani - and let's not get started on the authoritativeness of a man who is a known anti-military mouthpiece and is currently in court for possible treason. The Obama link that you quote is old and dated 9 May 2011 - and here is the opening text: "Barack Obama has ratcheted up the pressure on Pakistan, demanding that the Pakistani government investigate whether its own people were involved in a network to support Osama bin Laden in his Abbottabad hideout." He is referring to the government. Please go through the most recent news links, which imply that an official US conclusion has concurred that there was no sort of support for OBL in Pakistan among the top/government level. With that, everything else becomes irrelevant, trivial and conspiracy theory-esque. What support system, where, by whom and what established proof (if any)? For all I know, even the family living with him in that house could be called the lone support system. Mar4d (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well admission by Pakistani Ambassador to US is a major event, won't you say? The subject of the article is about allegations of support system in Pakistan and that, it is demonstrating beautifully. Your claim would have made some sense if the title were support system in Pakistan for Osama bin laden. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 11:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from replying under threads where I am not addressing you. It unnecessarily clutters up the discussion. You may use your own space below to make a point. Mar4d (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not that I am doing this just to create clutter, nor is it unnecessary or irrelevant. What you said to me can be used against you too. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, read the guideline I cited for my keep vote. Notability is not temporary. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Mar, your sources are not an offical US announcement, it is the opinion of one man, which is quite clear in the sources you have given. Nice spin on them though. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: is this a joke? Periodically nominating an article for deletion like this shows clear lack of faith in the conclusions that were reached by closing editors of previous AFDs.
NOTE: The comments on the 1^st & 2^nd nomination still hold true here. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following was written in the previous nomination discussion:

While this may be semi-related to Death of Osama bin Laden, it has more to do with Pakistan's actions while bin Laden was alive, so a merge there would be inappropriate. These action are widely reported see, and notable, so this certainly warrants an article.
— User:ARTEST4ECHO

—I think it's relevant here also. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I ought to give a more elaborate explanation here as well. This has substantial coverage in mainstream sources (using similar language to our own Article Name) and easily verified. This meets WP:GNG. Other problems (if any) don't necessitate deletion (they are surmountable). Point to be noted here is WP:SUBPOV, which says ″Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.″ I hope this helps clear the air a little bit. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am going to be the lone voice here. Articles like these should not exist in Wikipedia. They are nothing more than synthesis and piled-on opinion pieces riding on the coattails of recentism that have to be expensively curated for POV and editing disputes. It seems every recent event is prone to bursting into whole series of expansive write-ups like this one. In my humble opinion, this merits nothing more than a few paragraphs in the Bin Laden article with a few supporting references. I went through the previous two AfDs and I have to say it's amazing to see how so many Wikipedians don't mind turning an encyclopedic topic into a rotting link farm. So there it is. §FreeRangeFrog 20:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Nothing has changed since the last AfD, so I see no reason to continue beating a dead horse. I honestly could care less whether or not the article exists, but consensus seems to be that it should, and I'm willing to stipulate to said consensus. Go Phightins! 22:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the most recent AfD and I see nothing quite convincing which says that there is overwhelming consensus that it should be kept. There were significant opposing points and they are valid, and continue to remain valid looking at the article in its present state. Mar4d (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Go Phightins! and nothing much is there which needs a change.
I have gone through the most recent AfD and I see nothing quite convincing which says that there is overwhelming consensus - two consecutive failed nominations don't tell you enough about the situation, you mean? You don't or —should I say, won't— find it convincing that's your problem.

No, there were not too many valid claims. This is not a fringe theory and received significant coverage. The simple fact is that the article might be offensive to some but the problem is, it cannot be the only reason for deletion. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 10:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main article, Death of Osama bin Laden, is already long enough at 181kb, and it's also a Good Article. This article is notable and the subject received a great deal of coverage, so it is clearly not Synthesis. In fact, this is the proper way to use WP:Summary style: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." First Light (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per below:
1. WP:NDESC and WP:POVNAMING According to Article title policy, descriptive titles should not use non-neutral words or be judgmental. In this article the title implies that some wrongding has been done by Pakistan but not established in the content or any of the sources.
2. WP:SPECULATION The article currently is merely a collection of speculations as no evidence has been found to support any of the claims, besides some people have even denied claims attributed to them, or have given a contradictory statement.
3. WP:POVFORK This article is one of the best example of content forking, where the scope of the article is limited by its title. While the subject of the article is already discussed in other articles including Death of Osama bin Laden in a much wider scope.

--SMS ^Talk 12:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smsarmad, the page Wikipedia:Article titles actually says, ″The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.″ I think that's what the title of this article is doing.

The article itself is not a speculation. WP:SPECULATION says, ″All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article″ - the subject of this article has probably received more coverage than most in recent times. All the claims are verified by reliable sources and made by authority figures (High-ranking CIA operatives, VP of global intelligence firm, The President of USA, Foreign Minister of France, Pakistani Ambassador and other international delegates), it is not predicated on WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or a conspiracy theory..
WP:NDESC & WP:POVNAMING how are these even valid here? The page says, ″While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased.″
If you have a problem with the word "alleged", WP:ALLEGED says, ″Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.″ Hence, it's quite vague as to what you're complaining about and why.
See WP:CONTENTFORK actually says, “Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.”
Advice: You ought to read the pages before you use them as a basis for your comments. Wikipedia is not a vote. - Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ever thought of acting upon your own advice? Had you read any of the linked pages you would not be saying so, let me do it for you:

WP:SPECULATION says: "...Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."
WP:NDESC says: "...In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title ... These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title..."
WP:POVNAMING says: "...Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue..."

And WP:ALLEGED is a guideline and can't override a policy, besides it deals with the content of the article not the title. --SMS ^Talk 17:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting out of context, SMSarmad. WP:SPECULATION is not a barrier to the article's existence. The lead says

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. .... It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included

The major problem alluded to here is the inclusion of unverifiable assertions or WP:OR, a criterion which this article passes with flying numbers.
OTOH, the line you quoted was actually regarding rumors about "product announcements". Besides, many of the sources used in the article aren't even speculative, they, with certainty, assert Pakistan's indispensable complicity in keeping Osama safely hidden. This article is really ″bending over backwards to be neutral″ (in First light's words below). And you're free to balance it with more info. Hence, the problems (if any exists at all) are fully surmountable.

As far as polices are concerned, this article meets all the criteria mentioned in the main three Policies of Wikipedia:

Notability—

certainly,
Verifiability—

absolutely
Neutrality— If neutrality means: fair, unbiased and proportionate representation of all significant views to have been published by reliable sources, then I think it does a good job in being neutral. Well, others may have their own views but surely it's a surmountable problem. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 09:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to my comment above, what some sources call these allegations:
- C. Christine Fair said : "...we have to be faithful to the evidence and speculation is not evidence. Saying 'someone must have known' is not evidence,"
- Emi Kolawole said : "The raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound only hours outside of the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, has created a firestorm of speculation as to who was involved in helping to shelter the al-Qaeda leader from detection by U.S. and Pakistani intelligence..."
- The Nation : "While the US has raised speculation about Pakistans involvement in hiding bin Laden..."
- Ray Suarez said : "And even President Obama has waded into the speculation of how much some Pakistani officials knew of bin Laden's whereabouts"

--SMS ^Talk 19:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then those sources should be in the article. That's why the article title included "allegations." But that's not a valid reason for deletion. In fact, it only supports the validity of this article and its title, showing that the subject is widely covered by now even more reliable sources. First Light (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having sources for some subject is not the only criteria for having an article on that subject. These sources given above are in support of my earlier comment that this article is a collection of speculations. And I find that we have a history of deleting speculative stuff. --SMS ^Talk 19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the article isn't just speculation.

"a report in the Pakistani press in December had quoted him (the former ISI Chief!) as saying that Osama's stay at Abbottabad was arranged by Brigadier (retired) Ijaz Shah, head of the Intelligence Bureau during 2004-2008, on Musharraf's orders."
"Panetta (US Defense Secretary) stated that some "lower rank" officers in the military knew where Bin Laden was hiding..."
" "Husain Haqqani the former-Pakistan Ambassador to the United States, who earlier said both countries "cooperated in making sure" that the operation leading to bin Laden's death was "successful",[11] has admitted that Osama bin laden indeed had a support system in Pakistan."
Haqqani stated, "Obviously, bin Laden did have a support system (in Pakistan)."
"WikiLeaks had revealed that a US diplomatic dispatch told the Americans that "many" inside Pakistan knew where bin Laden was." and that "whenever security forces attempted a raid on his hideouts, the enemy received warning of their approach from sources in the security forces."

But even if it were just speculation, we're talking about speculation by the US President, Secretary of Defense, world leaders everywhere, journalists everywhere, in countless news articles in reliable sources. That type of speculation, by itself, would warrant an article here. In fact, WP:SPECULATION doesn't even cover this sort of commentary by world leaders, journalists, spy agencies on both sides of a subject, and more. First Light (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you never read the complete article:

The former ISI Chief! not only denied making that statement but also said "It is the hobby of the Western media to distort the facts for their own purposes" (as the news was picked up from Newsweek by Pakistani media).
Panetta (US Defense Secretary and Director CIA at the time of OBL operation) in an interview to CBC television, talking about the support network said "...we have not had evidence that provides that direct link"
Spokesperson of the US embassy in Islamabad also said that US has no evidence of Pakistan's involvement in supporting Osama bin Laden, while clarifying Leon Panetta's statement.
Robert Gates (US Defense Secretary at the time of OBL operation) said, "I have seen no evidence at all that the senior leadership knew. In fact, I've seen some evidence to the contrary,...We have no evidence yet with respect to anybody else. My supposition is, somebody knew."
The State department spokesperson also said that US has found no credible evidence for Osama's support network in Pakistan.
US Special Operations Commander said, "We have no intelligence that indicates the Pakistanis knew he was there,"
The former ambassador (Haqqani) also made a contradictory statement: "...both countries "cooperated in making sure" that the operation leading to bin Laden's death was "successful", and that President Obama called and thanked President Zardari for his cooperation."

Wide coverage and quotes (in fact speculations and suppositions) by notables doesn't prove anything, neither they deserve coverage here in a separate and dedicated article titled "Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden". --SMS ^Talk 08:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what First Light rightly pointed out,

Osama bin Laden must have had support network in Pakistan

"The fact that Bin Laden was living in a large house in a populated area suggests that he must have had a support network in Pakistan. We don't currently know the extent of that network, so it is right that we ask searching questions about it. And we will."

British Prime Minister David Cameron

.

I hope this helps clear the air a little bit.

BTW, SMSArmad, your POV-based chicaneries are astounding. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smsarmad, in other words, the article is a combination of evidence and conjecture. I say conjecture rather than speculation because WP:Speculation covers a completely different subject, that of predicting the future of products, movies, etc. by journalists — not statements that combine evidence and conjecture by US Presidents, Defense Secretaries, ISI heads who later recant (no doubt under threats), and other world leaders such as David Cameron. As it stands, this article meets, and even exceeds Wikipedia policies for neutrality, secondary sources (vs. synthesis of primary sources), and yes, 'speculation.' First Light (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, and also one must understand that when an incumbent President of USA and Prime Minister of UK make substantial claims like that which may have international ramification, they are actually being courteous or polite and/or even secretive. Use common sense. They are not allowed to make whimsical or unfounded assertions. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 18:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, which surprised me. Initially, I looked at this and thought, "Fork City!" But on reviewing the discussion here, and the quotes and sources in the article, I think this could, with many eyes, be kept tame. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like Bearian, I was also pleasantly surprised at the article's neutrality and tameness, and impressed with the referencing. Regarding claims of WP:SYNTHESIS, a look at the sources in the article puts a lie to that claim. Many extremely reliable sources have already done the work of putting the concepts together (Bin Laden + support system in Pakistan), so the Wikipedia article is clearly not our own synthesis. Many of the sources even have titled their articles in a way that is similar to ours, though even less neutrally by not including the word "allegations" in their title. Just a few examples:

"Obama: Bin Laden must have had Pakistani 'support network'" (USA TODAY)
"Osama bin Laden must have had support network in Pakistan" (The Guardian (London))
"WikiLeaks: Osama bin Laden 'protected' by Pakistani security" (The Guardian (London))
"Osama bin Laden has support network in Pakistan: Australian PM" (News.xinhuanet.com)
"Afghanistan: Pakistan Must Have Known bin Laden Was Living in Abbottabad" (Voice of America)
"Osama Bin Laden had support system in Pakistan: envoy" (Indian Express)
"Osama Bin Laden Killed: U.S. Intelligence Probes Possible Pakistani Support System" (ABC)
"Pakistan government knew where Osama was: Carl Levin" (The Express Tribune)
"Bin Laden given haven by militants linked to Pakistani security forces" (The Globe and Mail (Canada))
and the list goes on.

You can see that most of the articles about this very subject assumed it was a fait accompli rather than just allegations. Our article title is bending over backward to be neutral, in other words, and is also not synthesis. First Light (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per First Light and Darkness Shines. The research in the sources FL made above is enough to get the point and partially per Go Phightins! The article is not Synthesis as far as I see and is well sourced using reliable sources, most of which doesn't mention the term "allegations" as said by First Light above. This topic has received ample amount of reliable sources and thus the topic is independently notable enough and presented in an accepted neutral manner, to keep it. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:37, 24 November 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, Vacation^nine 00:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a POV fork and an original essay. Not an encyclopedic topic. Some content might be mergable. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it an original essay? There are dozens of mainstream news articles and opinion pieces on this very subject, with nearly the exact same title, so we are only reporting what reliable sources are stating. There is no synthesis or original research here. First Light (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a ballot box, my dear where you come out of nowhere and simply put your vote down without any credible rationale. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced and reasonably balanced, although it could be more organized especially regarding denials. Also, the consequences of the issue discussed are still playing out on a grand stage. Current, yes, but still encyclopedia.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gasolina (drink)[edit]

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

This product appears to fail WP:N. After several searches in Google News archives and Google Books, I've only found this one source from Fox News: [38]. Additional custom searches such as [39], [40] and [41] are not yielding additional sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 18 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, delete - Fortunately, that FOX News article confirms this beverage exists but I haven't found much including with Puerto Rican news websites and Google Puerto Rico doesn't offer a "News" feature. I enhanced my searches adding "Pan American" and "bebida" (Spanish for drink) but with no avail. It's possible this product has a different name in Puerto Rico and, unfortunately, I'm neither from Puerto Rico or familiar with Puerto Rican alcohol. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Couldn't find anything that was not PR or message board. SwisterTwister, the product is called "Gasolina" in Puerto Rico. Richigi (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Jessie J's upcoming studio album. Spinning Spark 17:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie J's upcoming studio album[edit]

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

WP:HAMMER applies. No confirmed track list and no release date means that we have articles only under exceptional circumstances, and I can't see that any exceptional circumstances apply. For those that protest "but it's only an essay", this guidance has been incorporated in ~~WP:NSONGS~~WP:NALBUMS as well. —Kww(talk) 00:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is only an essay and it hasn't been incorporated in WP:NSONGS, which wouldn't apply here anyway as this is an article about an album. It looks like this album will probably be released early in 2013, and there is already quite a bit of coverage, but with no confirmed tracks for the album it's possible that anything recorded so far might not make it onto the album. I think the best approach here would be to merge anything verifiable and particularly relevant to the Jessie J article, and incubate this article so that it can be worked on until we have some more certainty about the album itself. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should go review before I make comments like that. It's there, but covered under WP:NALBUMS, which makes more sense than where it used to be: "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label".—Kww(talk) 14:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

prefixed by "Generally". It also states "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it." I wouldn't suggest that the latter applies here, but it may well do at some point before we have a full tracklisting and confirmed release date, which is why I would favour incubation so that editors can continuing building it up until it's ready. --Michig (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. Album articles like this one are a bit tricky because I agree with Kww that WP:HAMMER applies, but there is also significant coverage for the upcoming release in multiple reliable sources, thereby satisfying WP:GNG. On the other (other) hand, this article doesn't appear to be one of the "few special cases" exceptions (a la Chinese Democracy) described in WP:NALBUMS. So with that in mind, incubation seems reasonable. Gongshow ^Talk 02:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though still a borderline case, I'm satisfied with the additional sources provided to show the notability of the subject re the general notability guideline. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean M. Burke[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Doesn't meet any of the specific notability guidelines and the claim for general notability is tenuous at best. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 12:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep Burke is a published mainstream technical author and prolific contributor of open-source Perl modules. He is prominent in the Perl community and has been consistently so for well over a decade. Joseph N Hall (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep Burke is both a substantial and long-time contributor to the Perl community, and a noted researcher in the field of Native American languages. Schuyler Erle (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was self-created by User:Sburke (Sean W. Burke) as evidenced by admission here. ~~Sean Burke:~~ please be aware of WP:COI (Conflict of Interest). ~~Associates of Sean Burke,~~ please be aware of the WP:CANVAS ethical guidelines. This AfD is not a vote, arguments need to be backed up by 1. Rules and 2. Sources. As is, the article has no sources, and the two Keep votes are not based in any of Notability rules (see WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE). ~~If you wish~~ to save the article recommend producing multiple reliable secondary sources that discuss Sean Burke in-depth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I have essentially no interest in contributing to Wikipedia and haven't for years? People like you, and comments like the one you just made. Write your own damn shallow articles and live in your own damn supercilious, self-centered, templated universe. Or else stop acting like you own the place. Joseph N Hall (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please keep your comments WP:CIVIL. There's no reason to abuse another editor in this fashion and if you keep it up you may be blocked. Qworty (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, Qworty. It was evidently a mistake to address anyone directly so I have striken that part of it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and whose work fails WP:BK. Strictly promotional article per WP:ADVERT. Keep votes appear to be from his meat puppets. Qworty (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meat puppets? Please avoid ad hominem attacks and keep this discussion WP:CIVIL.Mark viking (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Am I allowed to take part in this discussion on this page? —[email protected] (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely allowed to participate in this discussion. Conflict of interest restrictions don't apply to discussions about articles.Mark viking (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparing this article to articles of other notable people in the Perl world, one reason for lack of sources is that sburke's books and CPAN modules are not listed in the sources sections. But the books and CPAN modules by themselves don't establish notability in Wikipedia culture. Secondary sources are, if not required, then very helpful in establishing notability. Are there any interviews with Sean Burke or any articles about him in particular? Are there any reviews of his books by journalists or impartial sources, establishing notability for his books? What about independent articles on any of his CPAN modules? I did a quick search, but there are too many Sean Burkes in the world for me to easily sift through the results.Mark viking (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it hadn't occurred to me that the external links should appear, or even could appear, as references/sources. Let me shuffle that around and see how that shapes up. —[email protected] (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reliable source (Scientific Computing) to give a sense of the type of independent sources needed to establish Wikipedia notability. In this case, it would be in support of WP:CREATIVE #3: "multiple independent reviews" of a "well-known work". But would need more sources like that to meet the "multiple" criteria and to show it is a "well-known work". Other paths to notability might include CREATIVE #2 for the CPAN modules, if there are independent sources that can show they are "significant" in some way. For example, the modules are included with a core Perl library distribution that is widely used might be one argument (supported with independent reliable sources). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!, now I've got kind of an idea for what direction to go in. Can you have a look now and let me know if I'm getting warmer or colder? I think the fact that there's a whole chapter in a secondary book that says that I'm the guy who specified the language that the chapter is about, might count for something, but I'm unclear on this.. I plan to put in links to several selected Perl Journal articles-- there's coherence to them in that about half of them are about linguistics, text processing, NLP, etc; and that many are collected in the three volume "Best of the Perl Journal". Also, would it help if I linked to a review or two of the lexicography textbook that I appear in? I never know what's good to add vs just digs me deeper into the hole. —[email protected] (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source "foy, brian d (2007)" is excellent because it is independent of the subject (ie. a source not written by Sean Burke) and it shows Burke did something of significance. So is the Scientific Computing source. All the other sources are primary sources (by Sean Burke) and thus can't be used in determining notability. So basically we have third-party evidence that Burke "specified the Pod format", and that Burke wrote a definitive "RTF reference guide". Any book reviews written independently of Burke about Burke (or his book) would be usable too. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the gist of this now. OK, I have other third-party books that discuss modules I've written and published (…and I wasn't an author of the book, and in fact, my modules' appearances in the books were surprises that I stumbled upon *while reading the book*… pleasant surprises, although I wish they'd chosen better example cases. But as they say, "perfect is the enemy of done"); and I'll add citations to those sources in, say, the next twelve hours from me hitting Enter here. (I've got other kinds of sources— for crossing that bridge if we come to it, i.e., to establish further notability if deemed necessary.) —[email protected] (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:42 --(Green Cardamom (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

By the way, your link to Scientific Computing is to an article about general scientific computing. On purpose? —[email protected] (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You (@Mark viking) asked: "Are there any reviews of his books by journalists or impartial sources, establishing notability for his books?" Do online reviews count? Or does it have to be in print? Reason I ask is: there's a decent number of online reviews of Perl & LWP. (And I don't mean blurbs like an Amazon description or something.) Same question for interviews online: "Are there any interviews with Sean Burke or any articles about him in particular?" Well, one or two Perl.com dudes have been saying that I should do an interview there was like with Ilya Zakherovich and Damian Conway. What's everyone's advice? Suggestions, anyone? —[email protected] (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Wikipedia culture is concerned, source quality is more important than the medium; online book reviews can count. Arranging an interview for the purpose of saving a Wikipedia article seems a bit backwards and would be a COI. But if a journalist/news site comes asking you for an interview and the consensus here is that the source of the interview is reliable/reputable and objective, it will likely count toward notability. Mark viking (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes good sense. Thank you, this is helping me out.

Well dangit. I could have sworn there was a back-and-forth with me in Perl Debugged (2001), but now that I've unearthed my copy, there's just a big paragraph of me simply going on about record boundaries as optimization points. Tossing that in the wood chipper.

—[email protected] (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, alas. When this article was started, being the author of a technical book was considered enough to be notable. The consensus has changed. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Editing a dictionary does not get through #3, and I don't see that he meets any of the other points. §FreeRangeFrog 18:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have been entirely derelict in not having shown my work in having written articles. There's the word "columnist" in passing, and I have a link to something somewhere, but I have neglected to show as well as just tell. My articles are where I've put a lot of my work. I consider my articles to be at least as important as my books— but in this WP entry on me, as I've make the mistake of letting it stand, you can blink and miss it that they exist at all. I consider my work with the articles as well as with the modules to be parts of a greater coherent work toward demonstrating kinds of natural language processing, and providing tools enabling it. E.g., Locale::Maketext isn't yet another templating system, it's the basis for i18n of entire applications, like Request Tracker, with my goal in having written Locale::Maketext being to solve problems that encumber in gettext; Sort::ArbBiLex isn't just some little do-dad like the amortization module I wrote one afternoon, it's something crucial to localization, the theme of half my articles. I'll go put in some article links now, to make clear what has been, so far, nigh upon invisible in the article— to the result of this to-date resounding bafflement over why two books and a few modules have been claimed as be grounds for notability. —[email protected] (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as per WP:GNG, this discussion is not focused on what you have written, but what has been written about you in independent reliable sources. What we're really after is coverage of you (or your works) in the press or in books; independent book reviews; and awards (for either you or you works); and similar. Note that these don't have to be in digital form. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's in the works, too. One (or three or four) things at a time here. —[email protected] (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been active in the Perl community since 2001, and Burke has been prominent ever since. In addition, he's a published author in technical and linguistic fields. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dandv! But at this point, at least as I understand this all: in the complex metarules where these things are reckoned, they need to see you *already having said that*. Everyone, go write an article about me... in the past. I'll be having giving interviews. Hurry, man, before it's still time! But... gnkh,... dammit, I can't get my scp-based teleport to work right.
I like the coincidence that I've just now just finished reading Zero History, which contains a brand of clothing that's famous for being secret. ALSO: In the book, there's an academic named Milgrim who, because of sad drugs that I have some familiarity with, basically can't remember the past ten years of his life, where he's been sorta "of no fixed address". He goes into rehab, where they wean him off the big bad drugs by giving him other drugs. And toward the end, the reveal: «[Milgrim saying]: “I’m almost out of medication.” [they say:] “That’s all been placebos for the past three months.” Milgrim slid his hand inside his jacket, to touch the almost-empty bubble-pack. No more tiny purple notations of date and time. “But I like a placebo,” he said to himself.» I don't think I'm like Migrim,... but if I were, I would probably have forgotten having been. Similarly or at least isomorphically, I know a writer about whom I can almost say that "he's an excellent author who's quite famous— among authors."… but actually he's getting more of an audience now. But, sshh, I must not say his name, or Wikipe-tan might whammy him with the Stark Broom Of Removal.
As for me, my plans for the future involve making up some t-shirts at Café Press saying “But I like a placebo”. But for the moment, it's a secret— Don't tell anyone. Wait,... no,... Go tell anyone!
In the meantime, I'll be ~sourcing~ myself... But seriously, I'm actually finding some interesting stuff. Medical records formatting software using nuggets of my RTF,... people I never knew about using Locale::Maketext,... so APPARENTLY I ACTUALLY AM TAKING THIS PROCESS VERY EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY. READY GO. —[email protected] (talk) 20:48, 18 November 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, Vacation^nine 00:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by new Scientific Computing and Mastering Perl refs. -—Kvng 05:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SmartSE (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Top gear series 1 episode 1[edit]

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

Non-notable episode, no production, just a full plot summary of whole episode, which should actually just be a short one, per WP:TVPLOT. That's all, if it can be further explained, then keep, but it isn't right now. TBr and ley 18:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article on "Top Gear Series One" (there are some other television programmes which have specific entries on specific series, such as University Challenge? If there is, this article could be merged with that one. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:43, 19 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Television episodes are notable. Should be expanded, not deleted. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Television episodes are definitely not notable by default. Top Gear (series 1) adequately summarises this episode, so there's no need to perform a merge. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate that this episode is notable. Morefoolhim 22:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This level of detail of what went on on a single show in the series is unencyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychedelic trance#Dark. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark psytrance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dark psytrance

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

Seems to be mostly original research, can't find credible sources to suggest this exists. neon white talk 13:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep Google searches indicate that it does exist. If some can be found that are "reliable sources" then the article should be kept. Of course it can't be kept without sources, but the topic seems notable enough. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking reliable sources that describe what it is. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot see any reliable sources on a Google search and none in the article. Fails WP:MUSIC.--SabreBD (talk) 20:28, 16 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Psychedelic trance#Dark would be my recommendation, but alternatively keep it. User Spinningspark found a journal article which offers significant coverage of the topic, but I do not think we have enough sources to write a full article about this specific topic; I think it is better represented in the context of the Psychedelic trance article. ~~Delete Non-notable neologism.~~ --Odie5533 (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is plainly not a neologism, there are over a quarter of a million ghits for the term. This book source (Portuguese) uses the term. And this journal article on the subject,

Botond Vitos, "The inverted sublimity of the dark psytrance dance floor", Dancecult: Journal of Electronic Dance Music Culture, Vol 1, No 1 (2009)

I would have thought counted as a reliable source. Spinning Spark 18:22, 24 November 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, Vacation^nine 00:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A quarter of a million ghits are not really relevant to a debate about notability, since they seem to consist of things that are explicitly not reliable sources, such as self promotion on Facebook and Youtube. This is pretty much a definition of what an internet neologism looks like. That is not to say that it does not exist in some sense, just that this is not evidence that it is yet notable for an encyclopedia. I cannot comment on the Portuguese book, as I cannot read the context and in any case this is the English Wikipedia. The journal article is more of an issue and probably the best argument for notability. The journal calls itself "a peer-reviewed, open-access e-journal for the study of electronic dance music culture" and looks like one in the way it is set out, but the article does not read like an academic article. It is full of serious grammatical errors and unsupported (and frankly unsupportable) statements. Most strikingly it is only 1,250 words long - which makes for a very, very short academic article. I am not sure if we should take this as a reliable source, but it may be useful for those who have commented previously to give an opinion on this. I remain open to being convinced, but cannot change my delete at this time. There is still insufficient evidence of notability.--SabreBD (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I was reading the article, I was confused as well, but I just figured that's how all music journals were since I'd never read one. The article is written like a personal essay more than an article for an esteemed journal. It only cites three references, none of which are other journal articles, so it does not build on existing research. There are no footnotes, which is actually not surprising given the content of the article. Additionally, there is no direct contact email for the author. I think we should consider the journal WP:FRINGE unless and until it can be shown otherwise. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not point out the number of ghits because I thought they were all reliable. Most of them are probably no use for verifying any facts. Rather, I quoted the quarter of million figure to show that the term was not something made up one day. That is, the term is actually in general use; the criterion for inclusion in dictionaries (see Wiktionary:CFI for instance). This is a totally different issue to notability and verifiability, which must also be met for inclusion here of course. But it is unrealistic to expect to find a large corpora of scholarly articles on such subjects. The vast majority of music articles on Wikipedia get by on far less than what we have here.

There is no policy against foreign language sources at Wikipedia, in fact, a worldwide encyclopaedia will kind of require them if it is achieve its goals. Those of us that cannot read the language are required to assume good faith of those that can. Here are two snippets from a (not very good) machine translation of the Portuguese book;

That edition of Trancendence, the two also had the honor of commanding the CDJ's main runway for an hour and a half of intense dark psytrance.

Around eleven o'clock, former politicial and military stunted girl's father had left behind all the allure of colored lights and haunted dark psytrance, and, in the relative calm of camping, de-dicaram to a exciting combat "lock" until four in the morning.

There are also a few sources thrown up in gnews; "Converting Digitarians" (Danish), "N.A.S.A project" (Dutch), "Alle påskens fester 2010" (Danish), "Trance Energy" (Australian), "Dj israelita no Populos Inn" (Portuguese). Gnews is also showing snippets of articles in Jornal da Madeira (Portuguese) and Le petit bulletin Grenoble (French) but seems unable to retrieve the full page. All this shows at the very least that this is a worldwide phenomenon and not a simple neologism. Spinning Spark 21:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources appear to provide significant coverage. Though I do agree with you regarding using foreign sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychedelic trance#Dark. It certainly exists, but what we lack is verifiable detail that would support a standalone article. It can be summarized adequately at the Psychedelic trance article. --Michig (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats)[edit]

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

Non-notable new polemic; not every book reviewed in National Review or Publishers Weekly is thereby rendered notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Orange Mike | Talk 00:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps not every book (or every anything) reviewed at Publisher's weekly is notable. But this book has been reviewed not just with a press release, but in the leading journals and magazines relevant to its topic - all I see have their own wiki pages. The reviews are in depth article-length essays, and well written. The author is among the most notable academics and scientists, and that generates the initial outgoing and incoming links for this article It is unclear (with no references) why you call it a polemic - implies you have read it? – That's perhaps opinion, in mine it isn't. But that's beside the point. It is, as one might expect from the author, well argued, and footnoted. It argues a case which has caught many readers and reviewer's attention (as evidenced by articles in leading social science journals), and has garnered significant attention, both positive and negative: That's my definition of notable. Tim bates (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears the reviews in the National Review and Commentary Magazine are completely legit and in and of themselves are enough to establish notability. I see nothing in the New York times citation on the book, rather just a passing mention of the author. The PDF appears to be an academic paper and as such a primary source, not really acceptable for notability. But the two reviews should be enough to satisfy notability as they are in national publications of wide circulation. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews in Commentary and National Review are more than sufficient to establish notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Modest Mouse discography#Cassettes. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tube-Fruit, All Smiles and Chocolate[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of full-length professional reviews. The best in the way of sources appears to be a picture, four lines of text and a track listing, all written by someone who was sent a free copy of the album. That's not in depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Modest_Mouse_discography#Cassettes - Considering the cassette only sold 100 copies, this is probably to blame for the lack of sources and, like most bands, they aren't very well-known at their first days or work. Google News and Books provided nothing and my own search found this blog. Although the album is not notable, it is significant to the Modest Mouse discography so a redirect would be the best option. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:20, 18 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jones (boxer)[edit]

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

On notability grounds. A limited number of fights with an overwhelming loss record. His only victory was against another boxer with limited experience. That the latter boxer went on to become a significant kickboxer is irrelevant. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Subject clearly fails WP:NBOX. As a boxer, his only claim to notability, he won only 1 of his 11 fights. Who he fought is irrelevant since notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 18 November 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, Vacation^nine 00:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, and if we don't look at the whole "person he fought becomes famous part", there's only one game to back up any notability claims. Buggie111 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems he had a short career and small number of fights and Google News only found three relevant results here (Dennis Alexio fight) and 1988 retirement announcements here and here noting that he was diagnosed with hemophilia and lost sight in his right eye shortly after his retirement. After continuing my search there and Google Books, I found nothing else that was relevant. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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