Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 November	8 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USNA Out[edit]

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

Not really that notable. Organization is not much different than "Jewish Harvard Alumni" or "Princeton Wiccan Alumni" or any other offshoot group. Organization is weakly documented with most citations from its own site. A fairly small group BTW. Not really that notable. Student7 (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this historical compilation does not exist elsewhere on the internet. 7 of 11 documented references from mainstream US media seem to allow the subject to pass WP:GNG. --Lyle19107 (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily able to find significant amount of independent reliable secondary source coverage from (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). — Cirt (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it covered the whole US Navy that would be different, but covering only a single training institution with a membership of only about 300 makes it too insignificant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clearly satisfies WP:NOTE, check out fifty (50) results in search of books. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly note different names the group has operated under. Plenty of reliable sources available. Being the first US military group before DADT was repealed would also suggest obvious notability. Insomesia (talk) 12:30, 9 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 Appears these types of articles are acceptable, plus it is linked from the main page. AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of organisms by population[edit]

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

A self admitted speculative table which will always be incomplete. Don't really see this as an encyclopaedic topic. AIRcorn (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's useful to have at least approximate numbers from reliable sources, so the article has its merits. Could be renamed to List of organisms by estimated population or so. Brandmeister^talk 21:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or possibly rename / split up). As it appears to be well-sourced I don't see how the list can be described as "speculative." As for its incompletness, if its scope could be more narrowly defined than all organisms then it might be possible for it to become complete. Even if not it could still become comprehensive if not complete. Greenshed (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's as good a list as any other ranking of organisms, but the introduction is incredibly unfit for Wikipedia. "It's just an attempt to rank some well-known organisms." Really? Cleaning this up will be better than outright deleting it. 8ty3hree (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per CSK 5. Linked to the main page. 8ty3hree (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats how I stumbled across it. Didn't realise there was a criteria for that. AIRcorn (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the article is itself wrong in saying the tables are speculative—they look remarkably well referenced to reliable sources. The figures contained in the tables are estimates and will often be speculative but the estimates are by these sources, not by WP:OR. The different tables and the species in each table are not ranked by population (which might over-excite some critics), they are in classification order and alphabetical order by name. Lists do not need to be complete and this one already has sufficient scope to be fully acceptable. My view is that such data is entirely encyclopedic and indeed produces a thoroughly worthwhile article. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. Thincat (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a strange idea, but so long as the numbers have reliable sources, why not? For example, could certainly be used in a discussion of global bear populations simply by using the numbers given. Oaktree b (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is decided that this list is worth keeping, would it not be better to simply have a List of organisms with a sortable table. That way it is up to the readers what they wish to look for (i.e by population, location, Genus etc). Still think it is a crazy virtually never-ending list to have, may as well have a List of stars article. Whoa, that turned blue? Whew, it only leads to a list of lists. Or maybe define the scope a bit more to list of organisms with a population less/more than [insert low/high number here]. It is the rare organisms or the numerous ones that are interesting, not those in the middle. AIRcorn (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When you have finished studying List of stars you could turn to List of minor planets! Thincat (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Holy moly! I guess there is precedent for these types of articles. AIRcorn (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a superlative list for this one like List of long-living organisms or Largest organisms would be best. Something like Most populous organisms or something of the like. 8ty3hree (talk) 23:02, 7 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Evans[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Also tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 21:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - famous in my home country. Hektor (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete / Weak Keep - Most of the sources are dead links, and most seem to be specific to music she's recorded as part of some Jean-Jacques Milteau albums. In one of the reviews she's only mentioned in passing. French language wikipedia has no additional sources for notability.

That said, I did find some coverage which may be considered notable on French websites - on a site called Paris on the Move (Review of her CD, interview). She is also featured on a french culture website Evene.fr, but I'm not sure if it's crowdsourced. Her page is here. She is also featured briefly in a French music magazine called Mondomix here which seems at least somewhat mainstream. If these sites are reputable in France and notable, this plus her inclusion on decently-well featured albums from Jean-Jacques Milteau probably make this a keep for me. If these are largely crowdsourced sites without significant editorial oversight, I'd say delete. --0x0077BE (talk) 02:09, 7 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [1], [2] etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple significant reliable sources at Google News Archives. Cavarrone (talk) 18:43, 14 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental astronomy book[edit]

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

Non-notable textbook: WP:NBOOK Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also including for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fundamental Astronomy. I'm not sure what the guidelines are for textbooks but couple observations:

1. Found over 162 Wikipedia articles cite/mention the book (based on a Google search "site:wikipedia.org"). That's a lot of potential back links.

2. Google shows it widely used in syllabus at top schools like Harvard and many other schools.

3. It is listed here (Harvard) in a "core list of Astronomy books" to assist librarians in building astrophysics collections.

4. Per WP:NBOOK #1, it has been widely reviewed in reliable sources (academic journals etc). I added a few as example, but there are about 20 to 25 professional reviews at least. Most of them can be found by doing this Google search: review "Fundamental Astronomy" site:http://adsabs.harvard.edu

5. This (unreliable but interesting) post "is a compilation of books recommended by sci.physics (USENET) participants as the 'standard' or 'classic' texts" - it is among 1 of 4 Astronomy books to make the list.

All this adds up to probably notable even if the sourcing is not yet up to par, there is enough ancillary evidence to suggest it is (or was) a "standard" or "classic" text of the field, and we should give the article more time to develop (it was recently created). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Question and Answer Guide to Astronomy. This is not a textbook just a normal book "intended for a general audience". Per WP:NBOOK #1, it has been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources (reviews in this case). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've moved the page to Fundamental Astronomy (book), the suitable title format for a book name. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per Green Cardamom. --Hmich176 (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant information is missing in the articles (which need to be rewritten in part to indicate any sort of significance) but in any case notability has been established, so I withdraw my nomination. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 14:30, 13 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 no consensus. This has been relisted twice and has 2 delete and 2 keep votes and the consensus isn't clear at all. There are too less arguments that can possibly lead to deletion perhaps it is a NC case keeping the condition of re-AfDing in future. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of demand generation software[edit]

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

This is plainly an aggregation of sales sites. It looks like a directory and I don't find it worthy of inclusion per WP:NOT Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THis is a very helpful simmary do not delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.55.112 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely a well-compiled stand-alone list. The fact that it aggregates sales sites does not make it unworthy for inclusion. Several of the items listed have articles and the topic itself is notable. See WP:LIST. If this article is deleted, it calls into question any other list that only contains commercial items. It has more references per entry than any list I've seen. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that "demand generation software" has been treated in multiple reliable sources as a group, as required under WP:LISTN. A books search of the phrase gives only five hits, and none of them treat the subject as a group of things; they all discuss a particular piece of software. There's some coverage here, but this doesn't seem to be a very reliable source, as it's a commercial services site. There's some discussion here, but it's a column, and as such is not really a secondary source. There's also talk here at cnet, which is a reliable source, but it's also a tongue-in-cheek column (the phrase "I really wasn't expecting to have to wallow in it yesterday. :-)" is used). Other coverage seems to be either a) websites of companies selling such software or b) blogs and websites that wouldn't qualify as reliable sources. There's an element of WP:OR here in the synthesis of information from commercial sources into a list comparing demand generation software. There may be a commercial motive behind this article, but I'm not sure and wouldn't directly make that accusation, assuming good faith. --Batard0 (talk) 19:33, 31 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 31 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found. Even parody can show notability. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 13 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 00:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Economy[edit]

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

New journal, not in any selective indexing service. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - online searches for this phrase leads to thousands of false Ghits. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The journal's own page says it all: not included in any selective database. Clear fail of WP:NJournals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any articles about this journal. It's usually quite hard to support the notability of journals, which is a shame. I don't see any news articles about its creation either. Even tried searching LexisNexis. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a pretty good rule that if DGG nominates something for deletion, then the nomination is a valid one. However, I naturally did not rely on that rule, but made my own searches. As Bearian indicates, searching for just "Contemporary Economy" produces so many false hits that the search is useless. However, I tried various more specific searches, such as "Contemporary Economy" "Maritime Transport and Seaborne Trade" (the name of the institute publishing the journal), "Contemporary Economy" "University of Gdańsk", and "Contemporary Economy" "Uniwersytet Gdański". No matter what combination of terms I found, I failed to find any coverage anywhere other than Wikipedia, apart from inclusion in listings, and similar trivial mentions. I even tried searching the University of Gdańsk's web site for "Contemporary Economy", and got 15 hits for various titles that contained the words "Contemporary" and "Economy", but not a single mention of the journal of that title. It really does not seem that this journal has attracted any coverage anywhere, apart from this Wikipedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 14 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 00:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chutkule[edit]

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

Just a dictionary definition. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PROD removed. Cindy(talk to me) 18:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia does not need an article about every word in English, let alone every word in any other language. Not encyclopedic content. PamD 20:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides nothing useful at this time, Google News provided several results for products called "Chutkule" and relevant results for this word used as humour. Google Books also provided results that appear to be useless. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a word in Hindi and probably some other languages. Does not need an article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If, as the page suggests, this is a Hindi word for Joke, make it a {{R from alternative language}}. Articles treat concepts, not each word naming a concept, per NOTDIC. Cnilep (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDICT. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't even imagine this word having a Wikipedia entry. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 06:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki — Definitions of words go on Wiktionary. Z gin der 2012-11-14T19:12Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dharavahik[edit]

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

Just a dictionary definition. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PROD removed. Cindy(talk to me) 18:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC

Delete: Wikipedia does not need an article about every word in English, let alone every word in any other language. No encyclopedic content. PamD 20:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like Cindy's other nomination, Chutkule, this article reads like a dictionary entry rather than a supplemental article. Google News provided nothing useful (though I haven't searched Google India yet) and Google Books provided basic dictionary results. SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a word in Hindi and probably some other languages. Does not need an article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worthwhile to redirect to Episode as {{R from alternative language}}. Otherwise, just delete the page per NOTDIC. Cnilep (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki — Definitions of words go on Wiktionary. Z gin der 2012-11-14T19:15Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article expanded. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chonga[edit]

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

From deleted PROD: Slang dictionary definition, needlessly re-created after unsalting. Not significantly different from version deleted at AfD by a landslide.. Illia Connell (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uh, just out of curiosity, what makes you say it's not significantly different? I mean, I know these things are hard to judge without being able to see the deleted version, but the current version has a source that was published two years after the old version was deleted last. That alone is enough to stave off the previously-deleted angle, at least for me. Comparing the current and deleted version (at the time of the AfD), I can tell you they're pretty different. No actual delete !vote yet, but just wanted to chime in and say that the "previously-deleted" argument doesn't really hold much water. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD was in 2006. Did you notify the contributors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chongalicious (2nd nomination)? Drmies (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful recreation, there's potential for this to be expanded by sociologists and feminist scholars. Even as it is, the article goes beyond a dicdef due to the excellent source added by the Doctor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyouthankyou. There's more, though JSTOR doesn't offer anything. There's a bunch of news mentions in the Miami papers but those are directly related to the Chungalicious fad. There is, however, an article in Bitch, six pages long, but I don't have access to that. Feyd, are you a subscriber? Drmies (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try WP:RX, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amazingly enough, I can get it through institution subscription if the date's in the right range - do you have details on the cite? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but Oh NO! Yes: CHONGA GIRLS CELEBRITY BLOG. By: Reihani, Sara. Bitch Magazine: Feminist Response to Pop Culture. Winter2009, Issue 45, p28-28. Oh NO! I misread that entry--it's one single page. It also said "1/6p" which, for some reason, I read as "six pages long". But Nikkimaria, could you try and plug it into some other databases? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, send me an email and I can forward you a PDF. There's a summary of the "Bratz Doll" article in a later issue of NWSA; a potentially useful dissertation here unfortunately won't be available for a while. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has received a good deal of secondary source coverage, but you have to look under the various alternate spellings, for example chongalicious (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). — Cirt (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than dictionary content, a notable cultural construct, with sufficient sources in the article plus the additional ones in the "Chongalicious" article. (We've previously discussed whether to merge that article into this one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxiloxos (talk • contribs)
Delete, this is a slang dictionary definition of no actual encyclopaedic merit. The sources are a slang dictionary (which we are not) and a namecheck in a minor journal. This is not a subject of any objectively discernible significance and it should never have been re-created after the previous consensus deletion and salting. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete (or merge with Chongalicious). The article is still nothing but a dictionary definition. If the article is expanded to include any sourced information besides a definition, I'll probably change to Keep. As it stands, however, the previous AfD still seems valid for this content. Kaldari (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chongalicious (not vice versa). That is the longer article and it seems that more of an explanation of this term in that article would be useful. LadyofShalott 18:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a good idea to me. Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has become somewhat perplexing. The excellent source added by the good Doctor doesnt just "namecheck" chongas, its entirely about them. It discusses the etymology of the term; provides sociological analyses of chonga sub culture, sums up the extent of current scholarship on chongas; discusses the chonga's political significance and valence; and ends rather poignantly with a plea for further scholarly investigation to explore how the chonga identity can help young women understand their "bodies and pleasures".

Chongalicious is a major internet phenomena covered in depth by hundreds of sources, so naturally it warrants its own article. But it doesnt even represent 0.1% of what there is to say about Chongas - it's merely one of the most notable media depictions of the subculture. To risk a very imperfect brief sketch: from a Hispanic perspective, the Chonga identity is empowering for some, while for others being shameful and a means by which social pressure is exerted to get them to conform (both from the dominant Anglo culture and internally within the Latina community.) For non Hispanic women, chongas can be source of sexual insecurity, a phenomena of interest, and even a cause for sisterly concern. For men, attitudes can range from admiration to disapproval, with some at once fascinated and guilt ridden by their appreciation of the chonga image.

Moving from the personal to the political, attitudes and stereotypical portrayals of chongas are an important part of the US culture wars. They help explain the apparently paradoxical fact that Republicans have enjoyed a clear majority of the white working class votes since Reagan. Note how our article on the Elián González affair suggest that even that individual incident had an effect on the 2000 presidential election. Chongas even affect international relations, for example, news that several members of Obamas delegation were frolicking with Chongas upstaged the serious work being attempted at this years summit in Columbia, in part as it showed hypocrisy. As such, propaganda involving Chongas is an important part of a great struggle that effects all of us; the global, centuries long battle of titanic wills and intellects over politico-economic policy.

Since the 2006 there have been literally thousands of new sources published about Chongas. Admittedly most seem to be in Spanish, but there are at least several hundred in English. Aside from deletionists destroying our article on Michelle Obama, it's hard to think of a more embarrassing example of systemic bias than deleting or merging this article. The Doctor is not in the habit of recreating articles without good encyclopedic reason! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feyd, Cirt, I am amazed. Well done and thank you very much for picking up the slack for me. I knew the subject had promise but never had the sources to prove it, and you all added sources and content. Bravo. Lady, we're well past merging at this point, I believe. Psst, Nikkimaria, thanks for the link but it required me to log in, which I couldn't... Drmies (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Feyd, if I can yell at you while you're on your soapbox, you're absolutely right. But that "Chongalicious" gets so many more hits and "thus" would be a better article (I'm not saying you're saying that) again points out the weakness of Wikipedia's relying on news sources. Five years from now that stupid video will be nothing, and chonga will be around still. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Solid article on a notable subculture. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to keep - nicely expanded. LadyofShalott 04:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously of cultural significance. If there's a merge the song obviously would go into the (now) larger more general article. CarolMooreDC 18:20, 13 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 00:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Simov[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - articles is about footballers who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented their country at senior level, which means that the articles fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The athlete isn't notable, as shown by the lack of coverage by secondary sources. There are a few trivial mentions in non-English sources, but that's not sufficient. Does not meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 10:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: Aleksandar Simov and Miodrag Filipović play for FK Radnički Niš which is a team in the professional league of Serbian SuperLiga which means the subjects are presumed notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Why is it being stated that the subjects fail WP:NFOOTBALL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riley Huntley (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Riley Huntley - Although Aleksandar Simov is with FK Radnički Niš, who are in a fully professional league, he hasn't played for them this season. He only played for them last season when they were in the Prva liga Srbije which is not a fully professional league nor is the Belgian Second Division. Same story with Miodrag Filipović if/when they play for Radnički Niš in the Serbian SuperLiga they can recreated if deleted. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Hasn't received significant media coverage therefore fails WP:GNG & also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league the Prva liga Srbije & Belgian Second Division aren't fully pro. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. As said, hasn't played at in a fully professional league which makes it fail WP:NFOOTBALL too. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL. —Theo polisme 18:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability in either the gng or WP:NFOOTBALL per DUCKISJAMMMY's arguments. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:37, 14 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 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Montgomery (historian)[edit]

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

An engineer turned small-town politician whose retirement was devoted to "Jesus bloodline" fringe theories (see fringe theory noticeboard discussion). Sources seem limited to local papers with no evidence of wider scale interest, nor as a town councilman does he meet notability standards for politicians. Characterization of him as a "historian" is also questionable given his lack of professional education in the field. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. No specific training as a historian, and no claim to notablity as clearly stated by user:Agricolae on the FTN thread about him. And not really notable as an engineer either from all I can see. In any case, as an "amateur historian" he has no notability and his views are WP:Fringe - but the lack of notability is obvious now. History2007 (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing anything to indicate notability. Definitely not a historian. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable self-published fringe author. Unlike more notable fringe authors of fabulous genealogy, such as Gardner, Montgomery's works have not risen to the point that serious scholars have even bothered to give them a negative review. Nothing else in his life meets the burden of notability either. Agricolae (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fringe figure. Google searches turned up nothing beyond tangential mentions, and the subject has been totally ignored by the serious scholarly community. Fails all notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; short on notability, and it's practically impossible to write neutral content on, err, controversial topics if there's no coverage by mainstream sources. bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hold up. There's a bit of a mistrial going on here. Can we delete Barabas the Jew instead this time please? I've significantly expanded this article since these votes have been cast. You've all voted before I've finished work on it. There is now a BBC source in the lede, mention of a Warner Brothers documentary, significant armed combat service, extensive charitable work, a university published book, a non-self published book, a Cambridge University geneaology journal reviewing his work positively and over thirty reliable, verifiable sources. And Staffordshire, if you aren't aware is a pretty big county with 1,071,400 inhabitants. Can you all come back and cast your votes again please? Over 30 sources here say keep. There is some debate to change to Hugh Montgomery (author), Hugh Montgomery (politician), Hugh Montgomery (British soldier), Hugh Montgomery (engineer) and Hugh Montgomery (businessman) that may be had, but I think if BBC Staffordshire [3] and thisisstafforshire.co.uk [4] call him a historian, then we should too. I think he would have liked that. He was highly notable and has influenced a lot of people. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am sorry, but I am somewhat lost for words here, as I picked some of those to look at. A number of these references you just added go to make him look pretty pedestrian, and confirm my opinion that he is an unencyclopedic, non-notable item, e.g.

Daytime traffic ban proposals to attract High Street footfall which starts with "PLANS have been unveiled to ban daytime traffic from Uttoxeter's High Street in a bid to make the town centre more attractive to shoppers." And the only quote there is "Councillor Hugh Montgomery agreed and said: "I think, by and large, we should support this."

This "reference" is about preventing vehicles using the High Street in Uttoxeter (population 12,000) between 10am and 4pm from the junction with Smithfield Road and Carter Street.... This just confirms my delete vote. History2007 (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if every little thing he said and did got noted in the press, it just serves to increase notability. I think you are treading on dangerous ground setting a precedent that this level of local and regional coverage does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. If the level of notability demonstrated is "unencyclopedic", then you must want a very small encyclopedia.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:POLITICIAN, where it spells out the degree of coverage required for a politician to be notable. Mr. Montgomery does not meet that standard, at least based on newspaper reports of his activities in his political capacity. Yes, someone made a 'documentary' from one of his books, and it too is non-notable. A movie on Rotten Tomatoes that nobody has reviewed? That just proves the point. 'On the BBC'? Try, 'a local BBC blog reproduced his own press release'. A Cambridge genealogy journal? Again, no - the ~~on-line~~ newsletter of a Cambridge club. A soldier? yes, but not every soldier is notable, and he does not meet those standards either (see WP:SOLDIER). A university published book? No. A dissertation that was submitted, but given that he did not later use the title a success would confer, it doesn't look like this speaks well either. And his genealogy? Don't get me started - it's a joke unworthy even of the pages in a real genealogy journal (like TGM, TG, TAG, NEHGR, NGSQ or Foundations) that it would take to dismiss it. Notability is not additive - you can't just, by wealth of insignificant details, elevate a non-notable person to a position of notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the inclusion of someone with so little claim to notability is the very definition of indiscriminate. Agricolae (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)::[reply]

Comment *He easily meets WP:POITICIAN (on mayoral and significant other coverage grounds) and WP:AUTHOR. I think you'll find that Cambridge Journal is not "online only", but highly respectable and in print [5][6]. I'll get around to your other ridiculous arguments later but have to go to work. As for his genealogies, he could teach our best historians something as they are far advanced of Wikipedias and make our entire efforts on the subject look childish. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you keep calling a 'Cambridge Journal' is not "well respected" as a genealogical publication, and it is not a "Cambridge Journal". Not every item printed by people at Cambridge is a 'Cambridge Journal'. You are right that this newsletter is also produced in hard-copy, but it is still just a newsletter of a very small university social club, not a scholarly journal. WP:POLITICIAN has two criteria mentioned: 1) "hold international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". FAIL.; 2) "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", where significant coverage is defined as "has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." (emphasis added). FAIL. WP:AUTHOR gives: 1) considered an "important figure widely cited by his peers" FAIL; 2) "originating a a significant new concept, theory or technique" FAIL; 3) "created, . . . a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film [This does not include films 'based on' books . . . ], or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (emphasis added) FAIL; 4) "has won significant critical attention" FAIL. WHat his genealogy could teach us is how one can allow misplaced enthusiasm to overcome prudence and historical reality. Agricolae (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Paul, you are still having problems understanding (or possibly agreeing with) our policy on reliable sources. Given the large number of articles you have written, this is disturbing. And I thought you agreed to cease creating fringe articles. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one isn't fringe though Doug. Monty did groundbreaking genealogy research in various areas, mostly very dry, mainstream stuff on Scandinavian and European dynasties. He pulled all sorts of sources from all round the world, I suggest you read up on it, he beat up on Laurence Gardner theories even more than you do, knew every hole in that plot and re-worded, researched and put the way straight. I still argue strongly that he passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:POLITICIAN by a flying mile. With three professional fields of study, I'd suggest he passes WP:SCHOLAR by a flying mile too. His geneaologies were significantly different in many areas (and much wider, with reams of unique, important historical information) than anyone elses making it a significant new concept theory or technique: PASS, (if I have to go sourcing all his work on here, finding all the original manuscripts he found in far distant parts of Scandinavia and Middle Eastern collections, from other external secondary sources, it would take me years and years of editing) his work was featured in multiple independent periodical articles and reviews. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] PASS. As for a politician , he held a deputy mayor position at sub-national level:PASS, He was a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", where significant coverage is defined as "has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, to which you can add to the list above [15][16][17][18] along with the overwhelming number of other articles that perhaps did not feature him as the central attraction but show high notability. I guess if y'all want to keep Wikipedia in the dark ages then delete is the way to go, but I'll go all the way defending the likes of a good, local hero who showed that you can be notable and groundbreaking in your own back yard. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tried to be nice, but here is the unvarnished truth. Mr. Montgomery did groundbreaking nonsense with the Scandinavian and European dynasties, and his unique contributions are ridiculed by those medieval genealogists who even bother giving his works the time of day. His genealogies were significantly different because they were utterly ridiculous in a novel way. This makes his concepts new, but not significant ones because genealogical fantasy is a dime a dozen. Anyone can make up anything, and the fact that his were different in the names that he invented connections between does nothing to make his creations significant to the field - the field actually has to accept his conclusions to make them significant, and that is never going to happen when an author just makes things up, as Montgomery did. He beat up on Gardner only to come up with his own outlandish and impossible-to-support lame theories about dynasties stretching from the mists of time. There is not a single shred of evidence for these fantastical dynasties that he has cobbled together with wishful thinking, and the fact that the experts in the field (not just a bunch of university hobbyists, but those who publish scholarly medieval genealogy in Foundations, TGM, TAG, NEHGR, etc.) don't find it worth the effort of formally refuting it speaks volumes. Having three fields of study does not pass WP:SCHOLAR - it is not cumulative, and you don't become notable by being mediocre-to-poor at a lot of things, but publishing your own books - you actually have to be at the top of your field in one of them. You can stress that you strongly believe what you are saying, but that doesn't change the fact that you are misusing the criteria. Anyone can be groundbreaking in their own back yard - all it takes is a shovel, but nobody cares if you now have a hole in your back yard. Agricolae (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask just one question. Which books of his have you read to support your judgement on these matters. Have you read any at all? If not, I suggest you refrain from further comment. I have no way of telling what use or unique impact his work in the fields of Audiology, Engineering and Business because I haven't read them. So I suggest you follow my example. And of course fame is cumulative, that's why Wikipedia requires multiple sources and the substantial coverage that Montgomery has received, besides he doesn't need three fields of study because he qualifies under guidelines, he only needs one. Which with a unique historical publications charting a unique family history of a very large Montgomery family back to the middle ages. He also qualifies easily under WP:SCHOLAR guidline 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association, in this case the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland also under guideline 6. - "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." (Megatrend University meets criteria, even if you don't count the West London Busines School) and under guideline 7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." in his local council role, where he was "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and with regards the Cambridge University Heraldic and Genealogical Society and their journal. They do come from Cambridge University if it isn't overly apparent in the title, and most specialist journals have small readerships. And if he does fail on not getting any critical coverage (which is only 1 of the 3 elements that he can pass notability on), has anyone assumed that might be because he didn't do much wrong and certainly should limit the use of the word "fringe" till someone notable actually calls any of his work that.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinking a university club's elaborately named newsletter (as you did earlier) does not turn it into a notable scholarly work. It is not notable, and if you create a page for it, we are going to end up right back here again. Here are a few simple questions that you can ask when you look at a copy. Does it have instructions for authors? Do the articles have detailed footnotes giving the sources for the information? Does it have credentialed editors who are experts in their field? Does it have articles that address scholarly topics rather than the entertainment at the club's annual dinner? Has the head of the organization that publishes the journal actually made it to his 21st birthday yet? Then it's probably not a scholarly journal. Agricolae (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It already has a page that I didn't need to write (because it's highly notable). I changed the red to blue to so all the gobbledegook questions about the society can be answered there : Cambridge University Heraldic and Genealogical Society. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the newsletter does not have a page, nor should it. Agricolae (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My giddy aunt! I really don't have time to go around all night explaining everything and reading articles to you that you can easily read yourself. I have important work to do! The Escutcheon is already mentioned and redirects to that article. It is under the Publications section, at the bottom, where it's scholarly prestige as a publication and the struggle it had to become one is covered. So it doesn't need it's own article, it has already been redirected by someone who recognized it's notability. Can you please do some reading before rushing around making all these blindfolded suggestions and comments everywhere! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your giddy aunt may have read that article and reached the conclusion you did, but nobody else would. What the page you are citing has to say about the struggles to make this publication prestigious is the following, "In 1995 the Society launched a magazine, called the Escutcheon, which appears each term. It is edited by Derek Palgrave." That's it. Someone would have to be smoking something illicit to read that and think that it says anything about the prestige of the publication or how scholarly it is. Rather than taking the time to read it to me, you should just take more time to read it yourself. Anyhow, I am not basing my assessment on whatever got written into a Wikipedia page or whether or not there is a redirect. I am basing it on the newsletter itself. It has none of the characteristics of a scholarly journal except that they have chosen to call it a 'journal'. The newsletter of a social organization formed by a bunch of undergrads with a Jones for coats of arms and surnames - that's all it is. Agricolae (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had better finish with the ridiculous arguments too. 1) His thesis was published in 2002 by the Megatrend University, London. Please read the cite again, it has been improved. 2) He probably does qualify for WP:SOLDIER as he has had three in depth features on his military activities that you can dig out above from the Burton Mail, etc. Are you still reading yesterday's version perhaps? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has a PhD from Megatrend? That's pretty damning. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Balanced and useful information. It may not be useful to you, but again, the more concrete the standards for notability, the conversely less of an emotional appeal to make a judgement call on whether one personally finds something 'of note', is required. I would also suggest running this one past the 'Notability Noticeboard' and see if respondents there would agree there is no notability for any readers here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 07:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sources are passing mentions, not significant coverage in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much in the way of notability here. If he's notable a historian, then lots of historians should have mentioned him...and I don't see that here. Too much of the enthusiasm for keeping this article are from people who knew him personally - and that's a red flag. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "know him personally", (and I am the only person writing the article that "knew" anything about him before two days ago) I have all his books, but only ever met him once for a dinner after a lecture in 2007. I'm not even close enough to know anyone in direct contact with him to confirm any further details of his death. So green flag that one. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, that got me curious, so I googled and found the Uttoxeter Town website names him as the current deputy mayor for 2012-2013, as of Oct 26, 2012. And an Oct 31 newspaper article says he attended a town council meeting "last week". Surely if he had passed away, this would be reported somewhere, so it sounds like he is probably living. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets hope this article gets ressurected so easily. May he go on doing good deeds and increasing his notability. Best news of the night. Cheers Til. I've admitted below that I only heard through a rumour-mill that he had died. I will go update all the tenses, and the friend that told me. Perhaps he will get his Warner Brothers documentary after all? :-) Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, I'd also say running this past the notability noticeboard would be a good idea. A lot of the article is non-notable, but there is enough information here to be useful. If not kept, some of the information could possibly be merged into various other articles, such as the Local Councillor section into Uttoxeter and Hisorical theories into Theories of religion. Æthelred (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your grounds for keep. You have elaborated on why you think it should be merged, not kept. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see the 3 WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines that this article easily meets the requirements of in my discussion above.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies IRWolfie-, in more depth, I believe he meets notability for WP:SCHOLAR as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. If, after this discussion, it is thought he still does not meet notability guidelines, I propose a Merge as stated. Æthelred (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Abstain due to issues raised with the 4 points below. Original text follows: Any one of the following satisfies notability. I agree not all of the sources are as in-depth as they could ideally be, but when looked at as a whole the sum is greater than the parts. Montgomery has done so many things that are on the border of notability at some point the balance tips.
- 1. According to WP:SCHOLAR #6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President." Hugh Montgomery was President of Megatrend University of Applied Sciences.
- 2. According to WP:SCHOLAR #3: "The person is or has been an elected member of a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor." Hugh Montgomery was a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland which is an old and well established Society with membership by election.
- 3. According to WP:CREATIVE #3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film." Montgomery's book trilogy (God-Kings of Europe (2006), God-Kings of England (2007) and God-Kings of Outremer (2008)) were adapted into a Documentary God Kings: The Descendants of Jesus (2009) by Warner Bros.[19]
- 4. According to WP:POLITICIAN #2: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." He was elected Mayor of Uttoxeter, one of the major population centers of the Ceremonial county of Staffordshire.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no record of him being president of megatrend at [20] (I'm having issues enough just verifying this is an actual university). Uttoxeter is a small town of 12,023 people. "The God Kings" was not produced by warner brothers [21]. The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland appears to have a rather dubious claim to notability itself. Compared to say, the Royal Society. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear (somehow) to have missed the 20 or 30 records of his presidency in the article. Staffordshire contains over a million people, where he is widely covered along with Burton-on-Trent, population circa. 43,000. No-one has said that Warner Brothers have produced the documentary yet. They have merely invited him to produce one (that is in the rumour mill [22] to be a James Cameron movie about Constantine the Great that Megatrend University holds a 10% stake in). I am interested in why you think the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland has a "dubious claim to notability" because I can find no record of that. I'm not sure you grasp the concept of notability. Are you going to try and delete that article next? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me a high quality source that supports the presidency? From its own website, this universty appears to have only opened in the last 10 years as an actual universtiy rather than a business school. Because I'm having issues believing the current low quality sources. Specifically, a source which lists him with other presidents. You think I have a poor grasp of notability? Please, you've a 44.4% failure rate at AfD over 9 AfDs, mine is 18.7% over 166 AfDs. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've examined the sources and claims above, and come to the conclusion that they do not even come close to establishing notability. The sources are almost entirely routine, trivial and tangential mentions of local interest only. As for the claims given by Green Cardamon above:

1) I can find no independent collaboration that the subject was president of that "university", nor any independent collaboration that that "university" is a serious institution of higher learning. I smell diploma mill, or fly-by-night sham school. The claim is dubious to the extreme because he lacks the academic credentials to be president of a serious university.

2) The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland has an amazing 3,000 fellows. That's quite a lot for a society in a smallish country with a rather circumscribed scope of interest. This means that being a fellow is far from prestigious, and contributes little to notability.

3) The books mentioned rank 955413 , 409159 and 404735 on the list at Amazon.com. Furthermore, I can find no evidence any have ever been cited by serious scholars. The documentary film is truly obscure, and hasn't been reviewed by anyone at all. No one has commented on it at either IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes. Neither the books nor the film contribute much to notability.

4) The "major population center" of which he was a deputy mayor has a population of twelve thousand. Being the deputy mayor of such a small town contributes nothing to notability, especially as there is no significant coverage about his activities there.

All in all, there's a lot of puffery going on here to manufacture notability for an obscure fringe writer. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Here is a list of the university's publications, including Montgomery's from the period he was president as listed in the 20 or 30 independent collaborations that I told the guy above you about. [23] You can find that the University has a position as president on their website. Mongtgomery has a Ph.D which I've added to the lede. 2) The Society in Scotland has members around the United Kingdom, which is not a small ocuntry with circa. 60 million people living here. 3) Montgomery Millenium and his scholarly publications are the only ones that matter according to guidelines. This point is entirely irrelevant. 4) The UK is not Texas and is densley populated with villages around that area, as Uttoxeter is the nearest town to the UK's biggest theme park, Alton Towers. The "Major population centre" for that area is Stoke-on-Trent, population circa 400,000. Uttoxeter Post & Times circulation is around 3000, Burton Mail around 12000, Thisisstaffordshire.co.uk and BBC Staffordshire audiences much greater however all this is doesn't matter because he is a mayor with significant coverage, whatever the level, a scholar who led a University and published unique research in scholarly publications and substantial use of his academic interests outside that position. All that's going on here is a load of puffery and poppycock in order to ignore Wikipedia guidelines. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the claim he was President as there was no reliable source for it - it's an obvious BLP violation without one, as is the claim Warner Brothers invited him to do anything. By the way, 'mayor' is just an honorary position in the UK except for a few large cities which now have an elected mayor. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lest this be lost in the back and forth, let me state this unambiguously for those unfamiliar with the scholarship in the field. Anyone, such as this author, claiming that there are genealogical descents from Jesus Christ will never be notable as a scholarly writer of history or genealogy based on this work. The surviving evidence does not allow any reasonable scholar to reach the conclusion that such a descent exists. These claims are both fringe and fictional by definition, and they are treated as a joke by the scholars in the field. To be notable, such an author has to be particularly fortunate in the popular media (e.g. Dan Brown) because you will never be notable for it as history/genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- And while I am at it, the claim made in the lede that DNA evidence supports his theory is complete bullshit. The fault lies with the original source, the home-town newspaper again, but it is utter nonsense. If that is indicative of the level of fact-checking that their 'reporters' do, then everything from the Uttoxeter newspaper should be dismissed as being from a non-reliable/non-independent source, because the newspaper is clearly just parroting whatever Montgomery tells them since there isn't the slightest bit of accuracy to the claim. Agricolae (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the newspaper is parroting everything he says, then he's a editor of a prominent regular publication and qualifies for notability on yet another context. If we apply your logic, Wikipedia should delete every local and regional newspaper and every Cambridge University Journal source which is a very silly logic now isn't it. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these mischaracterizations of my position are indeed silly. When a newspaper fails to do fact-checking and simply repeats what they are told by a source, that does not make the interviewee an editor. To claim so is just ridiculous. It just means that the newspaper is irredeemably unreliable. As to the second straw-man. I am not saying that no local newspaper can be used. I am saying that appearance in a local newspaper is insufficient to establish notability because they report on everything from the local boy scout troop to local businesses to local athletics, none of which is notable by Wikipedia standards. I am also saying that this particular local newspaper is not a reliable source, as they make no attempt to fact-check their information. That is a critical basis for evaluating reliability, whether they fact-check or just parrot. I am also not saying that Cambridge University Journals should not be used, and you know it. I have said, again and again, that in spite of the glorified description this club gave it, their publication is not a journal at all, just a newsletter. It is not peer reviewed, it is not open for external submission, it is not produced by an academic unit of the University nor by its publishing wing. A Cambridge University Journal is a reliable scholarly source. The 'journal' of an organization of Cambridge students is not a Cambridge University Journal. Agricolae (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Agricolae is making wild presumptions, assumptions and accusations without any evidence of doing any reading or research whatsoever. It is very clear in the article that Montgomery does not support the works of Dan Brown, etc. in any way shape or form. His quote in the article shows he treats those theories as a joke. I'll come back later to explain the implications of the DNA evidence if you like can't be bothered watching his lectures about it. In the meantime, I suggest you think on the readership of thisisstafforshire.co.uk for me.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making wild presumptions and I never said that Montgomery supported Dan Brown. He supports genealogy that is just as wacky as that of Dan Brown, just with different made-up names strung together to get to the same place. It is typical that a fringe author treats the fringe theories of others as a joke, but it makes their own no less humorous to the mainstream. As to the DNA evidence, please don't waste your time. I know more about DNA than just how to spell it and I know precisely what can and cannot be supported based on existing evidence. The readership of thisisstaffordshire doesn't really change a thing in this assessment. A million people could read that website, and the claim to DNA support would still be delusional wishful thinking. Ten million could read that blog and the author's fantastical genealogical writings would still be considered a joke by the experts in the field. Agricolae (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're familiar with genetics, so I'll cut to the chase. The DNA support is based on the Y-chromosomal Aaron work produced by Harvard University biochemist Anatole Klyosov, Montgomery had his DNA tested and is Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) 12-23-14-10-13-17-11-16-11-13-11-[29], one mutation away from the Cohen Modal Haplotype, which only serves to show that his J2 ancestry dates back to a period after 550 CE, which could be 700 CE or later and he admits that. This is nothing to do with Jesus, Odin or fringery. The bulk of Monty's work concentrates on the historical period after 550 CE anyhow. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe his mother shtupped the local rabbi. To quote the original source, "A Local historian is re-releasing a book about Jesus after DNA evidence suggested his findings are correct." No, that has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. Forget Jesus and Odin, the suggestion that the Montgomerys can be traced before the late 900s is fringy. His House of Ulvungar work is fringy. Basically, everything he does in genealogy is fringy because his priorities are those of an ancestor-collector and magpie and not of a scholar. Agricolae (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While not directly relevant to the AfD, I thought I had best support this claim of fringery, so I will do that on the WP:FTN. Agricolae (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His military career is NN; so are his activities as a local councillor - town councils are a variety of parish councils and even district councillors are usually NN. I suspect that his career at Megatrend university was as a professor in the American sense (NN unless notable publications). I suspect his books are essentially self-published. I voted weak keep on another councillor-author, but I am more dubious in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on the article with some Serbian sources coming to improve notability even further to help allay your suspicions. Could really use any sort of keep you might consider. Cheers Peter. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Warner Brothers & publidations I see this is produced on demand, see [24]. This sort of thing usually suggests lack of notability, not notability. I'm removing two of his publications from the article because the only source I can find for them is one of his books Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think the Warner Brothers reference is to that old boring lecture. I have my suspicions Montgomery has a greater plan if this rumour mill [25] connects the dots about some behind the scenes discussions involving a James Cameron movie about Constantine the Great that Megatrend University holds a 10% stake in). None of that can go on the article of course, but it's a great rumour from a serbian cafe and suggests the local news article relates to a different project. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Fellowship of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland appears to be available on request: see application form. Applicants need to be supported by two existing fellows or other referees who "who are in a position to know of, and appreciate, your commitment to the study and understanding of Scotland’s past,". Doesn't sound like a "highly selective" honour. PamD 19:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't. There are a number of fringe writers who have obtained membership. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Along with a number of scholars too. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it erodes its use as a claim to notability since including fringe writers removes its claims to be being a " major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor". IRWolfie- (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, since sources are passing mentions, not significant coverage in WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established to Wikipedia standards and precedents. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
'~~Delete'~~ (sorry, I !voted already, this is a comment) Paul is still not able to find a reliable source saying that he was President of Megatrend. The sources he has found are copying each other and his Cambridge Journal is not an academic journal. If he'd been President of Megatrend sources such as the Serbian one saying he'd been awarded an honorary degree might be expected not to have overlooked it, and Megatrend itself would surely mention it somewhere. As for being mayor or deputy mayor, Uttoxeter is only a parish council with very limited governing and taxation powers, and 'mayor' (or is it deputy?) is the term used for chairman of the council, elected by other councillors. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is he being called mayor here (in an effort to show he is notable) when the article calls him deputy mayor (which means deputy chairman of the town council)? Even if he were a parish council mayor, that doesn't make him automatically notable. Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify this further he is a local councilor in a tiny parish council (a civil not religious parish), getting 792 votes in the last election, and is deputy chairman. There are two wards electing members to the town council, and in this ward there were 5339 people eligible to vote and 2162 ballot papers were issued. In no way is this major. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The honorary doctorate is not enough by itself and I can't see anything else in here to justify notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest Monty's honorary doctorate from the Megatrend University is additional to another Ph.D in Audiology from the University of Belgrade. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither an earned doctorate nor an honorary doctorate establishes notability. A million people get PhDs every year and some of them can't screw in a lightbulb, and some institutions give out honoraries to their commencement speakers or those who make a sizable contribution to their endowment fund. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable by Wikipedia standards, though not an uninteresting chap. Honestly, though, a lectureship/honorary doctorate from a place called "Megatrend University" is a strike against one's notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the three categories it may be included under (Author, Scholar, Politician). Numerous mentions in local media, but nothing substantial enough to pass the GNG. The Interior (Talk) 17:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've performed emergency surgery on poor old Monty to try and help this former president of a nationally recognized university and diplomat of peace and education to war-torn Serbia obtain notability. Nothing to delete here now folks, return to your homes. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that you have decorated the article with a whole lot of material entirely unsupported by reliable citation (a no-no for a BLP), I still see no evidence of notability. Agricolae (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Lipstick on a pig" is exactly what I was thinking. You beat me to it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal warning given to Paul for continued claims that he was President (both here and replacing it in the article). This is a BLP and such claims need clearly reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources and with one eye on WP:Fringe. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to being notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, if you are going to delete Monty and the last two millenia of history. Then I've created a way to fill in the mess that our history section is in with all the most reliable, non-Roman Catholic influenced sources outside of Monty that I am aware of. They feature several notable people you might have heard of. With this, if sadly without Monty's genealogies, we can start compiling Human history properly. Anyone fancy lending a hand?

{{Pseudo-Gnostic apocrypha}} Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on reliability of http://www.societies.cam.ac.uk/cuhags/escutcheon/2003-04/br_e.htm : that's a book review of the subjects' book. It shows no evidence of critical appraisal of the author of the book or his qualifications and the presidential claim is likely to have been copied directly from the authors book, making this a non-reliable source for this claim, in my view. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to show that I am doing my best I have e-mailed prof. dr Slobodan Pajović, their Vice-rector for international cooperation and Aleksandar Đorđević, their Acting director of international cooperation department, in Serbian and English requesting the names of their first and second presidents, and the dates for Montgomery. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:01, 14 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 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OlimpBase[edit]

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

Article appears to fail WP:WEB. I notice a source or two about their historical chess player ratings, but they do not seem to be enough to establish notability. I also see the "Golden Web Award" thing but I can't seem to find any sources about that. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable references, no claim to notability I can see. Note to closing admin: I nominated the Polish Wikipedia article for deletion at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2012:11:05:OlimpBase; if my vote is the only one I suggest we wait (relist this) and see the outcome of the deletion there, in case something else becomes apparent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:10, 5 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one citation in the article, and it's self-published, thus not reliable. No demonstration that the subject is notable.--xanchester (t) 10:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. I did actually find one article, but it only had trivial coverage. "Masters, old and young" in the April 30, 2004 late edition of the Newcastle Herald. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:01, 14 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 A Great Big Pile of Leaves. MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have You Seen My Prefrontal Cortex?[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. One long-form review at [26] which doesn't look like a WP:reliable source to me, and the WP:GNG requires a plurality of sources. PROD removed by creator without comment. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know the album hasn't charted, but if you read the article, you'd realise that they realised 11 or the 13 tracks on the album for free. They released their first two EPs for free also. This progressive release of music has given the band exposure to their target market. The album may not be chart-topping or award-winning, but what do you expect? This album has given the band enough exposure to headline a US tour. I think it's time for a major change to criteria for album articles. Surely if they're allowed to have a Wikipedia article than the major release that helped get them the criteria needed to have a Wikipedia article should be good enough. I'm not being unreasonable here, I'm being realistic. If people want to read about a band, they want to read about their music. It's that simple. Also, I did make a comment before I removed the PROD on the article's Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueCornPie (talk • contribs) 09:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are a few potential sources out there online, but not a lot. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:41, 1 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BlueCornPie, your argument seems to be (a) if the band is notable their album must be, too, (b) the criteria for albums are too tight. You need to make those arguments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), but until you convince people to change the policy, WP:NALBUMS is what we go by. The band can set up a Myspace page for people who want to read about their music. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Great Big Pile of Leaves. Coverage in reliable sources are needed to establish notability. Otherwise a redirect to teh band article were this is some information about the album is a reasonable alternative to deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 00:18, 9 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 00:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Pod (podcast)[edit]

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

Contested prod in July 2012 so bringing to AfD. Concern is the podcast show does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements at this time. References given are primary sources, plus 2 review articles dated 2006. Breno ^talk 05:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 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, Gongshow ^Talk 12:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Pod is likely the internet's most popular science fiction short story podcast. It's included fiction from virtually every well-known author in the field. It's almost always in the top 30 Literature podcasts at the iTunes store. Here's some coverage from io9 describing it as "the internet's most popular science fiction podcast": http://io9.com/5781776/steve-eley-heralds-the-rise-of-science-fiction-podcasting-in-episode-7-of-the-geeks-guide-to-the-galaxy Ggmohys (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather stunned that this article is being considered for deletion. Everything stated in it is correct. If you listen to the podcast, everything stated in the article is discussed in the introduction by the host. The criticism is overlooking the most fundamental of primary sources, which are cited: the actual podcasts that continue to be available at escapepod.org and the Internet archive. I'm not sure of the form here, but citing the podcasts from 2005-present will include all of the statements made. Just citing the podcasts from 2005 will cover 75% of the information mentioned.

It seems to me the statements made in this posting are being penalized because the primary source is audio rather than text. Even a generous reading implies that they are being penalized because the specific episode from which each statement originates is not specifically cited. I hope a middle ground can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.25.130 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is covered by books on podcasting: here a whole paragraph about it, and it is mentioned by many others. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:48, 6 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the aggressive deletion attitude of wiki editors, and the undefined, notability criteria is idiotic, because it's totally subjective and tends to be interpreted as well, I didn't know about it so it can't be very notable. Everyone should stop defending content and just let wiki whittle itself down to the lowest common denominator of things that everyone everywhere already knows about. That seems to be the goal. I'm not going to defend this page, despite being a fan of the subject in question. Wikipedia is lucky to be able to include it and if it can't recognize that, go ahead and delete it. It just makes wiki less relevant to users by doing this, and I for one would be happy to see it disappear into obscurity, as I don't believe it is very notable 67.190.150.254 (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read this. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by User:Cyclopia. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:16, 14 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 11:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brookfield Engineering[edit]

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

negative information about the businessBfenglab (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Article is well-sourced, and thus both passes the GNG and clears WP:GEOSCOPE. That being said, given the specious ground of this AfD, that the AfD is the sole Wikipedia activity of the SPA filing it, and the pretty plain COI violation suggested by the SPA's name, I'm comfortable with terming this a bad faith nomination. The "negative information" is sourced to both the Boston Globe and the Dallas Morning News, there is nothing about the information which is unsourced or violates WP:UNDUE, and the article was neither created as an attack article nor reads like one. Ravenswing 21:22, 1 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG based upon sources showing in the piece, in my opinion. Needs to be wikified, I will flag for same. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 7 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panama–Russia relations[edit]

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

Non notabily for WP:FOR#Bilateral relations Stigni (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. I have a question about their level of trade: Have they ever had much trade? Bearian (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what you consider to be "much". It 2011, the trade volume was only ~$66 million, but in 2008 it was ~$340 million. Either is chump change for Russia, of course, but I don't know if that's considered significant for Panama. There's more on the Panama-Russia trade in this article (in Russian), but it uses older data. Also note that while the trade volume may be low, the investment flows are more significant (see, for example, here).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 31, 2012; 17:37 (UTC)
Oppose deletion for procedural reasons. WikiProject-specific guidelines cannot serve as a basis for determining notability (only the WP:N criteria can) and, subsequently, for deletion. (But if objections based on WP:N are brought to light, I'll consider striking my oppose out).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 31, 2012; 18:40 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep article is a notable topic but needs to be improved and expanded. Not a reason for deletion. Outback the koala (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not improve from September 2008, the two nation doesn't have important fact that is not trade and the maximum trade was in 2008 with the 1% of Panama GDP (now is 0,2%), and there wasn't official visit of president/prime minister between the two nation so if you don't explain how the relation is notable for WP:GNG for me it remains delete, because article from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the two country doesn't respect the criteria: "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability"; and such article could be considered as primary sources ("written by people who are directly involved"). Stigni (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the piece is bad (which it is), unsourced (which it is), and hasn't improved since 2008 (which it hasn't), is neither here nor there. The question is whether this topic is encyclopedic (which it is) and whether it passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines as the subject of multiple instances of independently published coverage in so-called reliable sources. The hot Google search to confirm that this IS a notable subject is "NORIEGA" + "SOVIET UNION". Oldsters such as myself can remember firsthand the breathless twitterpation of the mainsteam media over Soviet intentions and relations with respect to Panama during the 1970s and to a lesser extent the 1980s. This is a clear GNG pass here. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 7 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No policy-based reason for deletion given in the nomination, which is based not upon notability guidelines but an outline for participants at a WikiProject. While there are no sources showing, this one is sourceable under GNG, as a search for "NORIEGA" + "SOVIET UNION" should demonstrate. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said above this article fail GNG, because there is not any real fact about Panama and Soviet Union/Russia. The Noriega case is after the U.S. occupation of Panama and the reaction after his arrest, so I think that if it has Notability can be insert on the occupation article or on his page. And for the improved, I think this [27] can be considerate a no-improve. Stigni (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Outback and Carrite. Plenty of room exists for improvement. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 13 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 00:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belize–Russia relations[edit]

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

Non notabily for WP:FOR#Bilateral relations Stigni (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion for procedural reasons. WikiProject-specific guidelines cannot serve as a basis for determining notability (only the WP:N criteria can) and, subsequently, for deletion. (But if objections based on WP:N are brought to light, I'll consider striking my oppose out).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 31, 2012; 18:41 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no embassies, trade agreements, significant migration, significant trade, notable incidents, regular high level meetings between leaders. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replay to Ezhiki: If you don't explain how the relation is notable for WP:GNG for me it remains delete, because article from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the two country doesn't respect the criteria: "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability"; and such article could be considered as primary sources ("written by people who are directly involved"). Stigni (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate decision lies with the closing admin. I'm merely pointing out the procedural aspect.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 2, 2012; 11:51 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the nomination is defective in that it does not present a policy-based reason for deletion, I think we can safely imply the complaint that this unsourced stub fails GNG. I am in favor of keeping all sourced X-Y Relations articles, but this one fails even that low bar. Fails GNG for not being the subject of multiple, independently published instances of coverage in reputable sources. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Libstar and Carrite; I can't imagine there is much more to add and source. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. --Hmich176 (talk) 11:12, 14 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 00:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waterbeach F.C.[edit]

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

The club has not played at a high enough level in the English football league system, and has not competed in the FA Cup or FA Vase. There seems to be some confusion between the Eastern Counties League and an Eastern Cambridge League that the club played in until the 1960s. Also, the history is a copyvio of the club website. Article was mainly edited by a user with WP:COI. Recent PROD was removed with no reason given. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – notability has definitely not been established. – Pee Jay 14:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet the generally established notability criteria for English football clubs. Number 5 7 15:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable club. Giant Snowman 16:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With reference to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST we get this result:

Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? NO

Q2. Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? NO

Q3. Has the club played in a league at the next highest level (listed in the Grey Column)? NO

Q4. Is there substantial identifiable media coverage (excluding match reports) about the club in reliable independent sources? NO

Q5. Has the club played in the past in a competition of comparable status to one listed in the Blue or Yellow Columns? NO

The club therefore fails the test and should be deleted. It should be noted that the Cambridgeshire Eastern Counties League is not the Eastern Counties Football League. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - not played at a notable level, or receives significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely never played at a level deemed sufficiently notable. Claims to have played in the Eastern Counties League Divisions 4, 3, etc, are either fake or a mistake and should actually refer to another (almost certainly very minor) league, as the ECL did not even have Divisions 4, 3, etc in the 50s -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete club does not meet criteria for notability as they haven't played in a high enough level. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:18, 14 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 00:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Life with a Soul[edit]

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

I came across this and noticed that the article was completely filled with various non-usable sources such as facebook, merchant sites, and review sites that anyone can contribute to. I've removed the sources that were blatantly non-usable and you can see the original version here. I did a search and was ultimately unable to find any coverage to show that this book passes WP:NBOOK. This is pretty much your typical non-notable novel. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a week, please. I will give you reliable sources according to Wikipedia article WP:NBOOK. I request you not to delete the article and give me some time. And, I also want some suggestion for the sources.Tokyogirl79, just tell me one thing please. Is anyone can contribute to sites like flipkart.com, homeshop18.com, my publisher's website:www.pigeonbooks.in and www.isfdb.org. Author of book "My Life with a Soul" (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... a good place to start would be the newspapers of India. You can try contacting some of the editors for the paper with information about your book and asking whether or not they'd be interested in reviewing it. You can also try contacting some of the people in the papers in any country, really. I can't guarantee that they'd cover you but it's a good place to start and since your book is considered indie, it would be you that would have to approach them rather than wait for them to approach you. News shows are a good place to start- see if your local news station would be willing to do a spot on you. As far as keeping the article, we can't entirely keep it based on that, but we can transfer a copy to your userspace and you can work on it there. I also recommend getting some help from WP:INDIA, as they're used to knowing which sources in India are the best to use. Just be careful about some review sites, as most of them cannot be used as a reliable source. Merchant sites are also unusable as reliable sources. One last bit of information: if you do manage to get coverage from a paper, make sure that it isn't a press release or anything that you typed up yourself. That would be considered a primary source even though another paper printed it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep,I find it bias that she wrote her book an article,but I heard of this book somewhere on the internet so I know there's a source somewhere.74.178.177.227 (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My book? I'm kind of puzzled as to what book you mean, as I don't write books. If you're talking about Witches of East End, I didn't write it and the big difference here is that the book has received multiple reviews from major papers and is in the process of becoming a TV show. Big difference here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the poster was referring to the article's creator and primary contributor, who is also the author of the book.Omgee (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources in newspapers and other professional publications. I will change my vote to Keep if 3 or 4 such sources can be found, depending on quality and publication of reviews. No problem waiting for a few weeks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a slight indication of notability. (though not reliable as sources, but still.) There's an entry in Goodreads for it [28], Amazon [29], Google books [30], Barnes and noble [31], etc. However, there are no reliable third-party sources or reviews I can find, even after an exhaustng cursory search. Mostly found vanity webpages. Thus, this fails WP:NBOOKS. Also, I have an issue with the creator of the page, who admitted to having a conflict of interest, being the author of the book herself. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing is that anyone can upload a book onto any of those sites relatively easily, so getting your book onto Amazon or Barnes and Nobles isn't the feat it used to be. I could knock out twenty pages of me describing what I ate for dinner this past week and have it on Amazon and B&N within a few days. It'd be up on Goodreads almost instantly, as soon as I could persuade one of their librarians to add an entry for me, which wouldn't be hard.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability tests as above. At present, the article is entirely unsourced. The primary contributor to the article is the author, which suggests a possibility of conflict of interest, or, at least, an opportunity for bias. I could get past that issue if there were some better sources or evidence of notability, but as it is, I'm in favor of deletion. Omgee (talk) 23:24, 14 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 00:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn University Physics Department[edit]

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

Individual department in a medium quality research university .The department is not particular notable among physics departments, no is it world-famous. Normally, we restrict articles on individual departments to that. 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

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.

But at least unlike many similar articles, it does not seem to have any copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of evidence (and reliable and in-depth third party sources) that this department holds some particular distinction relative to other physics departments, and in the absence of an article on a larger academic unit containing it to merge this article into. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only references are to primary refs, namely four academic papers published by faculty. No Department of any research institution in the US has less than four publications; the refs do not argue for WP:N. No mention of why this particular Department is more or less notable than other Departments, or Physics Departments of other schools. Lack of secondary or independent refs indicating quality or notability of this department. Article has been up a year, no improvement, hence "delete".--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have nothing to respond to the nom by DGG. However, at some point, we need a guideline for the notability of academic departments. This one has 21 'lines' and has produced some major research. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply fails notability per WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:22, 14 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 00:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Club (radio show)[edit]

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

Subject appears to be non-notable with no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Time enough has been given for adding references to establish notability. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 1 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources provided to meet .WP:GNG. unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject fails to meet WP:GNG and was tagged as such over a year ago. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:25, 14 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. Consensus is currently to keep, although sourcing can be improved (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal (album)[edit]

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

I didn't find coverage of this album that would satisfy WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Till 08:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep made billboard r&b #29, billboard hot 200, spawned three hits, [32] on MJ's label, produced by teddy riley - let's presume this has been written about. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Let's presume this has been written about" — we don't presume here on Wikipedia. Please read WP:N. Till 06:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes we do. I just did. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you even bother to read what I just linked you? "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Till 09:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - yes, & i presume such sources can be found. from WP:N: A topic is ... presumed notable if it meets [WP:MUSIC]. a specific criteria from wp:music - A[n] ... ensemble ... may be notable if it ... has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You are reading it wrong. It doesn't say that we presume a topic has sources if it meets a SNG, it says a topic is presumed (meaning assumed) to be notable if it meets the SNG. Till 02:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not reading it wrong at all. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's typically hard to find sources on albums that were released such a while ago. A quick search came up with an AllMusic review, which also gives information about it's release date, duration, credits, etc. The album has also charted, which shows some sort of notability. Lastly, it was also released by the record label of Michael Jackson. Article is in bad shape, but could be improved. If it can't be improved enough, a simple redirect to the article's page would do. Statυs (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say I expanded the article quite a bit. [33] Statυs (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you have. & let's note the allmusic review and billboard entries constitute multiple WP:RS. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Billboard entries don't count for anything. Listings are not coverage. And the Allmusic review barely counts, considering how it really isn't significant coverage as is required by the notability standards. Silver seren^C 08:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The official record of placing on a national chart is of course significant coverage. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I logged on today to check if this discussion had any new comments to it. I was, quite frankly, shocked to see it closed by Status' good friend Hahc21 (talk · contribs) with the rationale "The article meets both GNG and NALBUMS". This was completely out of line. Firstly, if you are going to opine to this discussion then do not close it. I hope that you should know that it's against policy to share your opinion on this article's notability and also close the discussion. Secondly, my concerns are entirely in good faith because I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV. The better option would be to let the Afd run its course. I will be notifying administration of this. Till 22:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep enough unrelated sources available to prove notability. The Banner _talk 01:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unrelated sources" is not enough. They must be secondary, reliable sources with significant coverage. Till 01:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty sure the user meant to say reliable sources. Statυs (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Unrelated and 'reliable' are two completely different terms. And how would you know unless you're a mind-reader. Till 03:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, he was right. I ment to say unrelated and reliable sources. Sorry, mate, I really think we should keep this article (although I had never heard of the band before) The Banner _talk 08:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Or are you part of the UDFW: The United Deletionist Front of Wikipedia? [reply]
        Show me the sources, because as far as I can tell, they're not there. You do know what a reliable source is, correct? And what significant coverage is? Silver seren^C 08:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been bloated with lots of irrelevant information to make it look larger than necessary. Till 01:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the WP:CHARTTRAJ violation. Till 01:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...And you keep going on about things. Jut an FYI, this is actually the first time I've ever written a commercial performance section from scratch, so I didn't know that you weren't supposed to do a play by play. Assume good faith next time. Statυs (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not going on about things I'm just saying that I removed some information. You're supposed to know Wikipedia's policies before making edits. Till 02:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except only 2 of them are anything close to reliable, secondary coverage. So how does this meet notability standards in the slightest? Silver seren^C 08:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources? I'm looking through the reference list here and i'm seeing practically nothing. All of the Billboard stuff is just listings, so doesn't count toward notability at all. And practically all of the Allmusic sources are just song listings. The only barely useful one is the one on the album, where it has an extremely short review. Other than that, the only actual good source is this and that's it. This is not even close to meet WP:N. If this is all we got and there's nothing else that can be found, then this shouldn't be a separate article. Silverseren^C 08:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with you. Which is why it's at Afd in the first place. The article looks like it meets the requirements, but that's because it's been bloated with information that doesn't really count towards notability. Till 08:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a rather nice cover-up job, actually. The bloating with Billboard listings was a good touch. I almost thought they were reviews (and thus reliable sources) for a moment. But, alas, no. Silverseren^C 08:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Bloating", "cover-up job" Are you serious? A brief history of it's charting process IS relevant to an album article, which this is, you know? There are several, several, third-party, reliable sources in the article. I haven't even look into finding much sources, just a few things I found with ease. I don't have a much particular interest in the subject, as I'd only just heard of them now and only listened to them when I was doing the sample to upload to the article. I guess you should really start assuming good faith to a user who is just trying to save an article for deletion. I thought the amount of information in the article was enough for a keep (which it is), but if you'll be happy with me expanding the article like it was some Grammy-Award winning album with seven hit singles, I'll do so. Statυs (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would actually appreciate more sources, yes. This is a nice source that I didn't notice. However, that and the Vibe one only add up to two. This doesn't add much at all, because it is 3 sentences or so that is just mentioning how it charted, that's all. It's not much better than the charts themselves. This barely adds anything, unless you think a two sentence review is significant coverage. This is a single sentence. It is pretty much useless for anything regarding notability. That means there's only 2 actually good sources. We need more than that to meet notability standards. Silver seren^C 19:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't accept that count, but regardless, please look up "multiple". 86.44.24.94 (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The amount of information in the article is not germane to the notability of the article and has no impact on a keep result. You can expand the article all you want, but that's not going to affect its coverage by third-party, reliable sources. Till 23:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, my assessment of the article's 22 references (as of this post):

-12 are Billboard, 10 of which are chart listings, and another has only a passing mention. As an aside, the first paragraph of the "Reception" section reads too much like a play-by-play for my tastes. Also, most of the "key" chart positions cited from Billboard magazine can be substituted with a single online source.

- 5 are Allmusic, 3 of which are directory/album listings, and another is a single-sentence mention. There's also a brief album review.

- 2 are links to MTV's video database.

- 1 is The Daily Cougar, a student newspaper.

- 1 is a Jacksons Number Ones book which has only a passing mention of the album.

With that in mind, and the need for "significant" (that is, in depth) coverage in order to satisfy WP:NALBUMS, the concerns regarding the quality (not the quantity) of sources are legitimate. The best of the dozen Billboard sources and the Vibe review are helpful, and additional album reviews exist in newspapers such as the Chicago Sun-Times, Dayton Daily News, and Chattanooga Times Free Press (180-250 words each). I have incorporated these into the article. That's good enough, in my view, for this album to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 05:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding in those reviews! I hadn't come across them! As for the "play by play", it was much longer before, and I just keep the most important ones there. Such as when it debuted, when it exited, and maybe a few other notable positions. Statυs (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed the section as currently written is improved and shorter than the original version. Whether it possibly needs more tweaking is an editing choice and not too relevant in terms of establishing the album's notability; I decided to weigh in just because it came to mind and was mentioned earlier in the discussion. What's more important, for the purposes of this AfD, is identifying significant coverage for the album in multiple independent reliable sources, and I think that's been achieved. Gongshow ^Talk 06:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on charting on multiple charts and sufficient sourcing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It should be noted that two users have attempted closing this AfD, and the nominator reverted both of them. Without notifying them as well. Statυs (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is borderline ridiculous by now. I will ask an admin to close this discussion. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:00, 15 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 WP:SNOW redirect and WP:HISTMERGE. Full listing period has passed. (non-admin closure)--xanchester (t) 02:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History merge Not done Astronaut: Moon, Mars and Beyond to Starlite (game) (asked for by {{db-histmerge}}) WP:Parallel histories Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut: Moon, Mars and Beyond[edit]

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

Duplicated Article with more elaboration found in Starlite. --Bumblezellio (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious redirect -- Previous name to the game, plausible search term. Should have WP:BOLDly redirected in the first place instead of taking to AfD. --Teancum (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am keeping options open for now. Its former name is indeed Astronaut: Moon, Mars and Beyond but we will decide this base on consensus since I have already started the AfD process.--Bumblezellio (talk) 06:42, 8 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) 21:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Starlite article is actually a separate article made years after this one was. Would there be anything that needs to be merged since in most cases when a game changes its name the existing article is renamed opposed to a second article being created under the new name?--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per Teancum. Probably mention the old name briefly in the lead and Development section. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close and Redirect - seems obvious. Better to not waste time and close this now, I think. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 21:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and WP:HISTMERGE. Seems like a bad copy-paste move. Deletion shouldn't be done due to attribution. The target article is the correct newer name. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to what Hellknowz said. -Thibbs (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. Clearly a copy/paste move at some point. The original name presents a useful redirect and it is already used in a number of articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:00, 11 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 00:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaise[edit]

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

Not notable musician who fails the notability criteria. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 01:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might be notable in Lagos, Nigeria but gsearch doesn't seem to support the idea that it extends outside of his country. The given sources are weak at best. Generally fails WP:ARTIST. §FreeRangeFrog 01:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in Lagos counts for just as much as notability in London or New York. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:32, 1 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, Wifione ^Message 04:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vacation9 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ARTIST. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:26, 14 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 Ras Kass. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Yellow Snow EP[edit]

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

I can't find reliable sources to showcase notability and, also, this EP was released for free [I got the EP today for free here] so it surely didn't charted [and as a result, is not eligible for certifications]. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 00:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I know if the artist(s) rate an article and meet the notability guidelines, then the album and/or single article(s) are also keepers. I have issues with this, along with artists that suddenly become notable because their record label rated an article, but that's a rant for another time. The best you're going to get is a merge or redirect, although given the amount of info already in the article that also seems unlikely. §FreeRangeFrog 01:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If an artist is notable, that doesn't mean that all of their albums are notable too. Albums and singles have their separate criteria. Remember that notability is not inherited. I think that at most, this would be a redirect, but not a keep neither a merge. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 01:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmpf, you might want to talk to a few people that watch over their fav artists' articles, then. §FreeRangeFrog 01:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand what are you trying to say, but it doesn't address anything. Please, elaborate further so that I can understand better your rationale. Of course you are not bound to, but it will help the closing admin. Regards. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been my experience in the past that people who 'own' article sets dedicated to a particular artist have argued successfully that an album or single merits a standalone article simply because the artist does. In some cases the argument has been that the artist's main or discography page has gotten "too long" and it was necessary to break it out, etc. In other words, the argument that the artist's notability automatically extends to the entirety of his or her work has been used to prevent articles like these from being deleted. §FreeRangeFrog 16:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a common music article creator and with a long experience on music notability, I can say that your experience or 1) has been very short or 2) has been in the wrong place. Whatever a wikipedian might say (that "the discography is too long" or another commentary, for example) that does not assess notability is invalid. Notability is not inherited. We cannot simply have a standalone article for a free EP that hasn't been covered by the media, or hasn't charted, or hasn't been certified, or whatever. We barely know this EP exists because it was promoted by its author and because several webpages mentions it. I am a musician too and I have released 7 singles and 3 extended plays so far, and in my personal opinion, none of them are notable enough to have an article. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 08:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply holds no notability. A free EP that can't chart due to being, well, free. Zac (talk · contribs) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ras Kass, standard procedure for non-notable albums/EPs. (A free release can be notable if it gets multiple reviews or other coverage, but I can't see any substantial coverage, just links to downloads/streaming of this recording). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several examples of articles about free EPs from different artists included in WP, and not deleted. I suppose that charting is not the only way to achieve notability, as many records had not charted in their release but became hits later for different reasons. If we adhere to that criteria in this case, the Ras Kass discography would have perhaps only two LPs, as the rest did not charted. Same would happen with several other artist. What I dont see logic or fair is that in comparison other artists articles had any minor single with its own page, with the excuse of having charted. The cited article also gives a continuity to the Ras Kass discography. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is pure WP:OTHERCRAP and therefore should be withdrawn. Qworty (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are several ways to make a free EP notable apart from charting, like: it got a very controversial cover, was released by a famous artist and contains very controversial lyrics, received reviews from music journalists, etc. But sadly, this EP meets none of them. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 01:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it seems that if the artist was 50 Cent, Rick Ross or Lil' Wayne the free EP would stay, thats what the facts seems to show. I dont see any good in mutilating an artist discography, sincerely.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  That's WP:OTHERCRAP. Unless those articles are somehow associated to this one, they can't be used as arguments in the AfD. Qworty (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for abysmally failing WP:NALBUMS. Qworty (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:30, 1 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, Wifione ^Message 04:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS and there are no notable sources. The Keeps don't seem convincing. Vacation9 (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails notability. --Shorthate (talk) 00:06, 15 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) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 06:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BEEBUG[edit]

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

I can't find sources enough to showcase notability due that a company working on another topic bears that name too, Beebug. I have seen several sources on the Web, but in my opinion they are not enough to make any claim of notability about the topic. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 00:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm currently working on content related to this article and the associated company. Considering its age and defunct status, there are obviously few online sources relating to the subject. Watch this space! -- Trevj (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - in its present state, there is nothing resembling a plausible assertion of notability, far less actual evidence of notability. Userfy it and re-create it if and when you have accumulated such evidence. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the history will reveal that I didn't create the article. Your comment seems to imply that I did (unless I'm being paranoid). Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trevj has worked on it since Orange Mike's comment. The first magazine for any of the early personal computers is an important part of computer history. Computer magazine's are not as big a deal today but back then they were one of the main ways for the computer culture to propagate. They were the blogs and online news of the day. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rewritten by Trevj. —Ruud 16:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per (almost, kind-of approaching borderline) WP:GNG. Deletion would be an obstruction to newbies (of which there exist some with an interest in this topic). Userfy/incubate if absolutely necessary but I think that would be not particularly helpful for editors wanting to improve the article. In the mean time, I'll continue to search for further sources. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've also dropped a note to one of the founders. -- Trevj (talk) 20:39, 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, Wifione ^Message 04:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A successful undeletion request has facilitated the reinstatement of (currently unsourced) content from a previous incarnation which has been history-merged. I've not yet been able to do a great deal of further searching for offline refs, although I have managed to find a couple more minor online ones. -- Trevj (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Trevj. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:51, 12 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interfaith Center of New York[edit]

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

Looks like an advertisement to me and lacks notability and sources. In my opinion, fails WP:GNG The Banner _talk 00:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:BEFORE, or if you wish, WP:HEY. Plenty of good sources are in the article: two New York Times articles and one Daily News article directly discuss the Center. Many additional sources could be found easily and added. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE does not take away the advertisement smell... The Banner _talk 21:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it certainly doesn't, but WP:BEFORE suggests that, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD" and most people would, I imagine, consider bringing an article into line with WP:NPOV or WP:MOS to be part of that "normal editing". That's not to say you are required to do that editing - WP:BEFORE actually suggests tagging the article to encourage others to fix it. Stalwart111 22:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 1 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, Wifione ^Message 04:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:PROBLEM. I don't see any notability issue, and I'm not going to champion this (because I'm sick and tired of AfD debates) but there's no real reason this should be deleted. Any issues it has can be easily overcome. Coppaar (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poor quality prose is not a criteria for deletion. In my opinion, the subject passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Stalwart111 05:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does have crappy prose, but that has never, short of WP:TNT, been a reason for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 13 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 00:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trillium Vein[edit]

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

Contested (de-tagged) prod; no sources that can establish notability of either the 'founder' or the band itself. §FreeRangeFrog 00:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably too soon, Google News provided nothing relevant and it seems all of the available links are primary and not useful. However, I found a link here that claims Trillium Vein partnered with a charity, but of course, this wouldn't indicate notability. It also appears that this is a one-member band much like Five for Fighting. As a courtesy to the author, I wouldn't object to userfying the article. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:16, 1 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, Wifione ^Message 04:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vacation9 (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The "sources" shown are just links to buy the music, or else primary sources, and do not support notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:44, 14 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BigMachines[edit]

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

Article reads like its solely written for Search Enging Optimization purposes or a marketing piece and doubtful notability outside of its niche market segment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arekusandaa (talk • contribs) 02:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To disagree with the nominator, this page here is utterly devoid of information on products or even the basic purposes, applications, and functionality of the company's software. Based in that, it's not an SEO article, and I'm not sure how it could be a marketing piece and be this bad. The reflist is full of self-referenced items and broken links to auto-refreshing news pages. My suspicion is that the company is mildly notable per various sources they show [Here], but the article is a mess that needs clean-up. I'll refrain from siding until I can check the refs more, but I tend to think this is an editing issue, not an AFD one. Celtechm (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also leaning Keep, but cleanup necessary ...some promising refs listed in link above (Co's news page), but not archived trough the original publication. Promising ref [Here], but I can only see the first 2 paragraphs. Celtechm (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep and cleanup - Appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Examples include: [34], [35], [36]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 1 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, Wifione ^Message 04:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep - Independent coverage isn't very deep but, gad, there is a lot of it.[37][38][39][40][41] Also saw many job opening announcements and business notes about the company and its growth during bad economic times. I didn't find enough to develop a substantial article, though. Like others, I'm on-the-fence but tilted toward keep. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 04:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs to be cleaned-up, but otherwise appears to be somewhat notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 13 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. deleted G11 by User:Bbb23 (see log) (non-admin closure) Odie5533 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12 Barz of Christmas[edit]

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

A non-notable event. Spam created by a SPA. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Hairhorn (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We could try it. It has had a CSD A7 thrown at it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second above. Midhart90 (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Definetely fails WP:N and should be deleted. Vacation9 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero Gnews hits, and most other hits just point to promotion of this non-notable event. Fails WP:N. — sparklism ^hey! 13:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur that the article fails notability. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any third party reliable source. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 06:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion should be closed. The article has already been speedy-deleted. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 14:11, 14 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 00:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yukon pizza[edit]

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

(Not quite blatant) hoax. No reference to "Yukon pizza" online in the sense of a flavor of pizza. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. The last sentence "In Hawaii, however, the Yukon pizza has been criticized as a neocolonial appropriation of Hawaiian culture." seems blatant enough to me. Barring that, delete as whatever speed seems appropriate. Nice try with the fake refs, though. Hairhorn (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the ref is apparently a real dead link taken from the associated article (apparently authentic - much older and once had more sources) Hawaiian pizza. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that afterwards. Reusing a dead ref from another article just reinforces the idea that it's a hoax, though. Hairhorn (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, playing the devil's advocate here, it seems that the creator of this page copied the format of Hawaiian pizza - the ref may have been copied accidentally along with it. To me, the greatest indication that this is a hoax is that an obscure variety of pizza should be important in both Hawaii and Lithuania... Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

? The (dead) reference is copied, then the title of the reference is changed. I don't see much good faith in there. Hairhorn (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recipe for non-notable foodstuff. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable flavor (may be local) that doesn't serve a purpose on an encyclopedia. Vacation9 (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non-notable. I didn't find any G-news hits other than references to pizza places in the Yukon or with Yukon somewhere in their company name. Nothing about a type of pizza. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Also states to be the most popular in my country (with not working reference) and I never heard about it. --Bearas (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having examined the Hairhorn's evidence above, more carefully, ~~I am nominating this for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax~~. I am presenting his argument here more clearly, since several of the above editors did not seem to notice that his article is a hoax.

Here is the original text from article Hawaiian pizza:

It is the most popular pizza in [[Australia]], accounting for 15% of pizza sales.<ref>Steve Green,PMQ GOES TO AUSTRALIA, ''Pizza Marketing Quarterly'' [http://www.pmq.com/win99_pmq_goes_australia.shtml] Last accessed 13 December 2006</ref>

And here is the text from Yukon pizza:

It is the most popular pizza in [[Lithuania]], accounting for 15% of pizza sales.<ref>Steve Green,PMQ GOES TO LITHUANIA, ''Pizza Marketing Quarterly'' [http://www.pmq.com/win99_pmq_goes_australia.shtml] Last accessed 13 December 2006</ref>

—Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the original authentic link at Hawaiian pizza, now a deadlink, has been fixed. As expected, the article refers to Hawaiian pizza in Australia, not Yukon pizza in Lithuania. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I've misunderstood the definition of a blatant hoax. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the blatant part comes from the silly quote I already gave above about "neocolonial appropriation of Hawaiian culture"; Hawaiian pizza has nothing to do with Hawaiian culture; it's not even from Hawaii. See "Do Hawaiians Eat Hawaiian Pizza?" Combined with zero relevant Google hits, that's easily enough for speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments made above. The article appears to be a hoax. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:09, 14 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 00:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spring St. & 1st St. /City Hall (Los Angeles Metro station)[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as listed below:

Article is about a bus stop and fails notability guidelines. Unlike the Silver Line stations outside of Downtown LA, which are actual stations with dedicated infrastructure, this is nothing more than a curbside location on a street where buses stop to pickup passengers. The content of the article simply lists the location of the stop, nearby landmarks, and connecting services. Since there is no infrastructure at the station, there is nothing else encyclopedic that can be said about it. Note that the stop is also not listed on the official Metro maps, and simply just noted with dots in the area where the Silver Line has street service.[42][43] –Dream out loud (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the editor who originally tagged these as {{notability}} and {{primary sources}}. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vacation⁹ 17:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. As I understand the Wikipedia conventions, constructed stations are considered notable, but bus stops are not. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 8 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.

This is completely ridiculous! Why did I take off my personal time to make these articles with my uploaded photos. If you deleted the articles I created, then YOU MUST also delete the bus stops on the Boston Silver Line as well.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Synthetic cannabis#United States. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Rozga[edit]

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

This person is only notable for their use of K2, a synthetic cannabis which lead to their suicide. This page should be a redirect to an article on K2 (the drug itself), synthetic cannabis or the illegalisation of synthetic drugs. -- Patchy1 00:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:BIO1E. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Synthetic cannabis#United States. Subject is notable for just one event. The content in the article should be included as part of the legal status history of the drug in the United States.--xanchester (t) 03:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 31 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, -- Patchy1 02:46, 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, -- Patchy1 01:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Synthetic cannabis#United States per WP:BIO1E. Notable for only one event. Vacation⁹ 17:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per xanchester. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:09, 7 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. (Non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 23:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early Pacific typhoon seasons[edit]

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

The article describes a very limited set of typhoons in a 3-week period in 1853. It is based entirely on a single primary source, of which it appears to be a close-ish paraphrase. It probably doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Stfg (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and mark for expansion. AFAICT, it is accepted within WPTC that tropical cyclones are always notable enough to list (this is a separate issue from whether they are notable enough to have an individual article). Therefore, this should be renamed to some list of typhoons by date, such as list of Pacific typhoon before 1900 or 1850-1859 Pacific typhoon seasons. If other near-contemporary seasons to this one have a comparable amount of information, I'd favour the decadal article. The issues with only covering a 3-week period is really due to undue weight and a lack of research (or perhaps info) regarding the rest of the time. This can be handled with marking it for expansion and adding info on other cyclones. For example, here is a source that could be used to expand a multi-season listing. This is rather similar to the 1977 Pacific hurricane season deletion discussion, where, when the article was created, it only covered the first storm. The problems in this(early typhoon seasons) article can be solved the same way as in the 1977 season article. The close-ish paraphrase can be eliminated by rewriting. Therefore, as I see it, the article needs work, not deletion.
BTW, I'm going to notify WPTC of this discussion (as is requested on the AfD page), both on its page and on IRC. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no objection to going in the direction suggested by Miss Madeline. It appears from Category:Pacific hurricane seasons that decadal articles exist from 1900 to 1948 and then annual ones from 1949. There is already an article List of Pacific hurricanes before 1900 which has no section for 1853. Why not use this source to create such a section? That would be due weight. If an article is wanted, it seems immaterial whether we rename the present article or create a new one, but I hope that paraphrase isn't going to be allowed to fester as it has up till now (with a notability tag and suggestions to delete sitting ignored on the talk page). This attracts tags like {{copy edit}} and {{wikify}}, which make work for people. --Stfg (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there's no section for 1853 in List of Pacific hurricanes before 1900 is because that article is about Pacific hurricanes, which (by definition) are tropical cyclones east of the dateline. The article under discussion here is (nominally) about Pacific typhoons, which (by definition) are west of the dateline. It is conventional to split the East from the West, because tropical cyclones are infrequent in the Central Pacific, and there are also meteorological differences between the two areas, even if these sorts of tropical cyclones are identical phenomena. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly agreed. I think this should be kept and expanded and possibly re-titled. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 1 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 00:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added information and sources on three or four more individual typhoons. There does seem to be a lot more information out there, Spinning Spark 10:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd be more than happy to withdraw this nomination if there's a procedure for doing so, if anyone would undertake to edit away those tedious details (like barometer readings to 2 decimal places copied from ships' logs in archaic language). Additions like those provided by Spinningspark make the article worthwhile. I certainly don't want to pursue a nom that obstructs that continuing. --Stfg (talk) 11:42, 7 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 00:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror.co[edit]

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

Small startup company; with perhaps one exception, all of the references are either press releases, constitute trivial coverage, or are from non-reliable sources. Appears to be some WP:COI issues from single purpose accounts going on as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - The number of sources, including New York Post, Men's Health and Thrillist, over the course of a few months, indicate a growth in popularity and thus notability of this new web technology. - Dmattio —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC) — Dmattio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: While I probably agree that the NY Post and Men's Health sources are notable enough for a Keep, I think that the growth in popularity, unless notable itself, isn't as important as the overall notability. Not sure if your argument was meant to say, "this technology will grow to be popular enough to be notable in the future" or "this technology has grown enough to be popular". If it's the former, then I think the argument is invalid. If it's the latter, then I think it's a valid argument. 0x0077BE (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The concerns raised here refer more to the minority than the majority of sources used for this page. New York Post, Social Times, and Men's Health are notable news outlets with significant followings and don't in my opinion constitute trivial coverage. Moreover, Yahoo had also chosen to pickup this story along the way. There's more strength than weakness in the sources cited here. It would appear that deletion would be a hasty decision at this juncture as the notability of the topic discussed within its page and on its site seems to be moving forward. - MikeGurock (talk) 9:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — MikeGurock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment The Yahoo! link, as I alluded to in the nomination, is just a PRWeb (public relations) release, which means nothing in terms of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment More sources have written about Mirror.co in Huffington Post, Mashable, and the Venture Beat in the past week, all notable publications. The Yahoo link may leave something to be desired but the other sources on the page strike me as relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.45.250 (talk) 14:10, 6 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 00:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey MBisanz Appreciate you keeping this discussion going as I feel this page and topic has garnered requisite coverage at this juncture to stave off deletion but even more so towards full on inclusion within the Wikipedia site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeGurock (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not a notable company. --Shorthate (talk) 00:05, 15 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 list of Amtrak stations. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amtrak station codes[edit]

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

List info is already present in List of Amtrak stations. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to list of Amtrak stations. It's obviously redundant. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it's obviously redundant and duplicate info. --TV | talk 00:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WAIT It may appear to be duplicative, but they were created by different individuals at different times. The two should be compared and consolidated and not summarily deleted and redirected. Also the page that would be left is not fully converted into a sorting table format; until that happens you could not effectively search by the 3-letter code. Highspeed (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both lists are significantly inaccurate. Amtrak shows 11 stations with codes beginning with "Y", which is considerably more than either list indicates. It also seems to me that using our article on station codes as a source for expanding our list of stations makes no sense at all, when an authoritative reference is available. Mangoe (talk) 12:52, 2 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 00:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why can't we just add all the station codes into a column in the station list article? This way we don't need two separate lists. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge if there's anything to merge. I agree with Dream out loud, better to combine the two lists.--xanchester (t) 10:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - combine the lists. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles cannot be effectively merged into a single set of tables because of the existence of entries such as Allensworth State Park (CNL) and Burlington, Vermont (ESX) where the code and the station name do not start with the same letter. To retain the features of both existing lists in a merged article, therefore, List of Amtrak station codes would need to be copied in its entirety into list of Amtrak stations in addition to the current content. The only other option would be one single massive unwieldly sortable table. In any case that is not likely to happpen in the lifetime of this AfD so the current information will need to be kept "as is" in one article or the other at least on a temporary basis. Spinning Spark 23:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That supposedly unwieldy list already exists, because the stations list already contains the station codes and is already sortable by them. Mangoe (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - and make sortable. Of the two pages, right now only the 'A' section of the List of Amtrak stations is sortable. Highspeed (talk) 00:06, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gonga (band)[edit]

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

No source has been provided since the creation of the article. It fails to fulfil the notability guideline for music. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly weak keep. It's not a great article but there's coverage at both CLASH ([44], [45]) and Allmusic ([46], [47]). I couldn't find much else though. --Michig (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A PopMatters review [48] and a shorter one at Uncut [49]...combined with Michig's findings, that might just be enough. Gongshow ^Talk 07:58, 2 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 00:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cleaned it up, threw in references. Looks notable enough. A412 (Talk • C) 04:04, 13 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. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Harding[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. no extensive coverage of this individual. gnews and BBC. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Harding is universally well known within neurology, and this nomination says more about the effort that has gone into establishing notability than her notability itself. After an extremely accomplished career she died young which is why popular contemporary news websites won't have much to say about her. She easily meeting the following criteria for academic notability:

The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Harding established the first, and still definitive, classification for hereditary ataxias: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1293984
The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

I suggest beginning here which establishes the above, and work outwards from there: http://www.neurology.org/content/46/6/1770.extract Dubbin^{u | t | c} 11:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As already stated above she was the first to define a classification for hereditary ataxias, which helped in the understanding of for example the Huntington's disease. But the article itself can be much improved to better support her notability. SchreyP ^(messages) 20:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Xxanthippe: I mean oppose to delete this article, or like you say Keep. SchreyP ^(messages) 22:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a GS h-index of 20 passes WP:Prof#C1 in a highly cited area. Obits add. Would the editors above like to tell us what they are opposing? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notability established per the above. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 7 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. Spinning Spark 22:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby (2013 film)[edit]

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

The only reference shows that this film would be "presented" (i.e. discussed) at the Cannes Film Festival last May, "looking for international coproduction and distribution of the actual projects", but I cannot find evidence that anything has happened since then. IMDb shows it as "in development". On the company's website a search for "Ruby" produces only an Italian version of the same press release. I spent some time poking about the site without finding any other reference. There is a Facebook page with no more information. I can find no indication that this film is making progress. Fails WP:Notability (films), specifically WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacking release or coverage we have a textbook case of TOO SOON. Okay with a return to its creator. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way too soon. Corn cheese (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy per rationales above. It's just too soon. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy per above. Cavarrone (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would think Delete for failing WP:NFF, but is there any chance references can be found in Italian language? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete film is not notable at this time. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:11, 14 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. Spinning Spark 22:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Win4Lin[edit]

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

Hi.

This article is about discontinued software with no assertion of notability which has been tagged for the said issue for over two years. This article has been twice proposed for deletion (WP:PROD) by two independent editors: Myself (2012-08-11) and Jæs (2012-11-06).

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm a named ~~co-conspirator~~ co-nominator here, I probably shouldn't count as a !vote, but I do want to point out that about the only purpose this article serves at this point is as a coatrack for artspam. It contains no information that can't readily be found via Google, no assertion of notability, and no notability will likely be forthcoming at this stage in the game (seeing as how discontinued software tends to not suddenly spring to notoriety at random). jæs (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticing the two follow-up comments here by Ruud and Frog. Looking through the Google results from Ruud, it looks like they are all passing mentions of Win4Lin in the "software directory" sections of various magazines. None that I could find seem to assert that the software is particularly notable. And, as Frog points out, the software was included in various Linux distributions for a period of time. I don't think there's any inherent notability there, and barring any reliable sources to the contrary, I still think this article doesn't deserve a keep. That being said, if anyone could recommend some merge targets, I'd be happy to try to summarize the existing content with a proposed blurb that could be merged elsewhere. jæs (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this used to be pretty notable software some years ago (probably more than 10 by now). IIRC, it even shipped with one of the popular (commercial) Linux distributions of the day as one of its killer apps. —Ruud 18:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It gets a rather decent number of hits on Google Books and there might an article about in old number of InfoWorld. —Ruud 18:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was quite popular back in the day... RedHat 5.x and so on. I remember it well. Of historical interest if nothing else. Or at least merge it. §FreeRangeFrog 03:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and mark as stub. There appears to be some third-party coverage.
- http://linuxappfinder.com/package/win4lin
- http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/69849/Windows_Emulators_for_Linux_VMware_Win4Lin_Face_Off

However most of what I'm finding appears to be in blogs and forums. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the many books which discuss Win4Lin. I'm adding a few sources to the article as well. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:29, 14 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.