Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 September	22 September >

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 userfied. De728631 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HackShark Linux[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The only sources are either primary sources or self-published sources such as forum posts. The article has zero third-party reliable sources that show any notability. Sudo Ghost 23:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit Wikipedia's policies. But, the problem is HackShark Linux is a new distribution. You can see the first release date from http://sourceforge.net/projects/hacksharklinux/files/ . Indeed, it's not much popular as Fedora or Ubuntu or other distros. That's the main reason it's hardly possible to find out any reliable third party sources as its references. However, as per the official download counter at http://sourceforge.net/ we can claim that HackShark Linux is becoming popular, we don't even know the unofficial download numbers from the forums and self-published sources. We know, by time, along with higher versions it will also become a popular distro, and will reviewed by popular third party sources. Now, the question arises here, until it becomes reviewed by any popular third party sources, can't it be a part of Wikipedia? -- Orion Caspar (talk)

Actually it can't, as we have some rules (eg. WP:GNG, WP:NOTADVERTISING) we should obey in order to avoid cluttering up. You may want this article userfied unless you can gather enough sources to move it back to main namespace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is 'userfication' exactly? I have read the article WP:USERFY but I didn't understand it quite well. -- Orion Caspar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put into your user space: User:Orioncaspar/HackShark Linux. This is explained when you edit a new page. Like Donald Knuth says, "if all else fails, read the instructions". JoshuSasori (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - page creator seems to admit it fails WP:GNG. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - provided sources are blogs, forums, and developer's pages. No coverage in reliable sources, so no notability. Dialectric (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my concept clearance, what exactly do you mean by reliable sources? -- Orion Caspar (talk)

Reliable sources are explained here. Basically things like blogs, personal home pages, (or even wikipedia itself) which anyone can edit aren't considered reliable sources. Please see the links for exact details. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a noticeboard if you have any questions about specific pages, the editors on that page are generally very knowledgeable about that sort of thing and can help give their opinion on any given source if there's any doubt. - Sudo Ghost 02:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Close - the original author of the article seems to have accepted that the subject does not meet WP:GNG. Can we now Delete the article and close this AfD to allow the editor in question to continue work on a future article in his own space? Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: it is apparently evident that no reliable third-party sources are there to demonstrate project's notability as of now. As the article is not subject to tone problems, and there is an editor (Orion Caspar) who is interested in further development of the article, I would prefer moving the article to User:Orioncaspar/HackShark Linux (or even Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HackShark Linux) over deletion, so that once there are reliable sources to support the notability claim, the article with its editing history could be accepted into mainspace via WP:AFC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dimitri for this consideration. Definitely, I'm into the further development of this article. As well, I'll be really glad if other contributors help on it. :-) -- Orion Caspar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. De728631 (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morningstar Pass: The Collapse of the UFO Coverup[edit]

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

A self-published book of dubious notability. The article makes some grandiose claims about how this book was praised as the "War and Peace" of the UFO genre, however upon investigation, it would appear the only place those claims were made were in user reviews on Amazon, thus not exactly a reliable claim. The sources on this are hard to investigate: both are print-only, UFO centered publications. I am unsure of the validity of reviews from these organizations, nor of the extent of coverage either of them gave this book, but I feel that the book having no reviews in more traditional sources of book reviews is rather telling. The third source used in the article, to a page on SETI's site, is not about the book at all, and thus not a valid source. Looking for additional sources, the only place I'm finding any mention of the book is in "About the Author" sections for other things that this author wrote, both under this name and his real name (Victor Norgarde being an alias). Rorshacma (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's still a long way from notability. It needs to be reviewed and/or discussed in more mainstream sources. Borock (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a cross-database search of 50+ subscription databases (jstor, gale, newspapers etc) and it came up 1 hit, Worldcat id: 1414019092 --Green Cardamom (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find where this book was covered in any reliable sources other than one sole link in the Florida Today. [1] This is not enough to pass WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. De728631 (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Venture[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards at WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being far too premature for an article. The Ned Venture official website itself tells us it is only now in pre-production, making this a failure of WP:NFF. If the article's new author wishes it back for further work, then okay... but he must also be sent to WP:PRIMER and various other help pages to better understand what gives a film its notability, and to understand our requirement for verifiability of a topic and our need that reliable sources speak about the film itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The film just very recently started production, and does not even seem to have a predicted release date. The only source is just a brief note on its production. No prejudice to recreate once any notability for the film is established, presumably much closer to its release. Rorshacma (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kordell Samuel[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Malaysian 2nd division is fully pro, a claim not supported by reliable sources at WP:FPL or elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if by any chance the article gets kept, it will need to be 100% re-written, it's probably the least encyclopedically-written football article I've come across -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. 09:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to meet GNG. The usportt.com might be acceptable (although I don't know how reliable it is), but article would need additional independent sources anyway. Eldumpo (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quatara Mamadu[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to suggest the subject has played for any team in a fully-professional league that would allow the article to pass WP:NFOOTY. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This could as well have been speedily deleted before per CSD A7. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abler[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a company that fails WP:CORPDEPTH: No significant coverage in secondary sources. A Prod was deleted by the author, without a edit comment. Ben Ben (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no 3rd party reliable sources which would indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Labanya Prabha Ghosh[edit]

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

Person isn't notable. A google search for exact name gives only 6 results, one of which is this article itself. Kondi (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. According to the references provided, this person was a state MLA, passing WP:POLITICIAN. I will look for more reliable sources to confirm this for a keep. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a Times of India article confirming she was a state MLA, passing WP:POLITICIAN. I also found numerous Google Book hits covering her activism. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google search may not be a great method to establish notability of a person in South Asia who was active 50 or so years ago. Books establish the notability. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject was a MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly), passing WP:POLITICIAN. Article also mentions the subject was a freedom fighter of India and becomes notable. In this angle, this article is a strong keep.-Rayabhari (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- as per above. It clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:POLITICIAN. Available references (Considering the timeline) suggests that she is more than a notable figure. Speedy Keep. -- Bharathiya (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the keep comments are in any way compatible with WP:GNG or WP:Notability (web). Someone famous blogging about it doesn't make it notable. Nor does a single article with a few sentences in one newspaper make it notable. Now, it seems like some day it may meet our guidelines, so if someone wants a copy for your userspace, please let me know and I will make one for you if you want to keep working on it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supertova[edit]

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

Created by the site owner making it a big COI problem and just doesn't seem to be all that notable. Eeekster (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The article is of a dating website that is mostly used by the Jews..The subject has been featured in several intn'l media and has also been cited in various blogs (though not reliable sources) as the free largest Jews dating website. This is a fact that is yet to be established by a reliable source. Am digging up more references to cite on the article. Aha... 20:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwisha (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Was featured in the Indiana University newspaper as seen here Aha... (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwisha (talk • contribs) [reply]

Another reference here Aha... (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwisha (talk • contribs) [reply]

This link contains wrong information. The updated and real reference is Updated reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albakiulmaruf (talk • contribs) 04:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — Albakiulmaruf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The sourcing is poor and does not support notability.

The Jewish Light article has three sentences on Supertova, two of which are copy taken directly from the company website. That violates WP:Independent.

The Matthew Hartmann, Luke Ford, and HaBitza blogs are not from "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:BLOGS

The Jewpro.co.uk source is a blog and it is a simply a company directory listing, without original, verifiable third party content.

The Indiana Daily Student and Jewish State articles were based on promotional activity and press releases by the company. According to WP:N:

No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity[...]The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

The link to Newsvine is bad -- the website reports "There doesn't seem to be a page here anymore." A search of Newsvine for supertova yielded "No results."

In addition, a Google News Archives search for "supertova" yields on a single match -- a press release. Other searches show an absence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (WP:N)

As Eeekster pointed out, the article was added by the company owner.

If [...] you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing; then you are very strongly discouraged to edit Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased).[...] If you have a financial interest in a topic (either as an employee, owner or other stakeholder) it is advised to provide full disclosure of your connection, and to use the "discussion" pages to suggest changes (using the {Request edit} template to request edits) rather than editing articles directly. (WP:NOPAY)

Finally, WP:NTEMP: Notability is not temporary. There is no string of time-spaced coverage of this company by WP:RELIABLE sources.

Once the company has done something noteworthy and has achieved coverage based on its actions, it should come back and create an article, following the WP:NOPAY guidelines. Infoman99 (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Supertova is a project that is very popular, and they were interviewed by a legitimate university, Indian University because it is notable, and good news for the students whom are Jewish and single

no possible way Indiana University is looking to promote a non-notable website, its ludicrous to even draw up some conclusion that Indiana University is sparking news about something as a 'promotional' means. Very bizarre to draw such conclusion. references reference1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albakiulmaruf (talk • contribs) 03:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — Albakiulmaruf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The Jewish State voluntarily wrote and published an article in their paper about Supertova. The Jewish State, though you think is not notable (not known to non-Jews), but it is very Notable and carries ALOT of weight in the Jewish Community. Here is the reference

Luke Ford blogged about himself joining Supertova.com. He is a well known writer, very popular, and made a name for himself. He is also featured in Wikipedia as a 'notable' person. Do you really think someone like Luke Ford would blog about himself joining Supertova if it wasnt 'Notable'???? To even argue the validity of Luke Ford, and his blog is absurd, immature, and trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkhabib (talk • contribs) 08:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — Mkhabib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (web). There is no discussion of the website's impact or historical significance (likely because it hasn't had any yet). The article is basically just an advertisement. FWIW, JDate isn't much better, although at least that article mentions the site receiving a Webby award. Kaldari (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of British Columbia Faculty of Law. There is a clear consensus to merge/redirect. Since all of the referenced, relevant content already appears to be at the target, a redirect suffices. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dean of University of British Columbia Faculty of Law[edit]

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

Deletion per WP:GNG and WP:Overcategorization. I feel a category for the Dean of a Law university has no place on Wikipedia. Peripherally, I also feel this article violates WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Shashwat986 → talk 19:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a category, so WP:OCAT does not apply. The rest of your nom is just a bunch of WP:VAGUEWAVEs with no explanation or justification other than ipse dixit. The information is already at University of British Columbia Faculty of Law#Deans, however, making this list duplicative. The list is also too short to justify a WP:SPLIT due to WP:SIZE concerns, so just redirect or delete. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you guys think that it should be deleted, then you should also delete Dean of Harvard Law School for the exact same reasons. I created the Dean of University of British Columbia Faculty of Law based on that page. I personally think it should remain, but I'm tired and not really in the mood to argue. CanadaRed (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the effort, and it wasn't a bad idea. However, the Harvard Law School article is longer without the dean's list included, its dean list is nearly twice as long and consists entirely of individuals that merit articles, and the position of Harvard Law School Dean is a much more prominent one. So the need for either school to have a separate list is not comparable. What's the problem with just including the list of deans in the main University of British Columbia Faculty of Law article? You could develop that bare list into a table there just as easily, and if you can find sources supporting their individual notability, make articles for each of the deans too. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the appreciation. I do agree with you that there is work to be done on the UBC Dean List, and it certainly is a work in progress. I personally haven't had a chance to put more work into it yet, but I plan to when I have a bit more free time. I do have an issue with the comparison between Harvard and UBC though. First, Harvard is not the most prominent law school in the US. I believe both Yale and Stanford are ranked higher. Second, you're comparing schools in two different countries and two different legal systems. They're both common law, but there are many differences between Canadian and US law. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Canadian lawyers and judges are Canadian, not American. Having a law degree from Harvard doesn't mean anything as far as the Canadian Law Societies are concerned. A graduate of Harvard would have as much difficulty being called to the bar in Canada as a graduate of the lowest ranked American law school. Basically the prominence of an American law school is irrelevant in Canada. In Canada, the three most prominent universities are UofT, UBC, and McGill. As I said earlier, I believe both articles should remain. CanadaRed (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The differences between Canadian law and American law are completely irrelevant; what is relevant is that Harvard Law Deans are demonstrably notable individually and as a group and UBC Law Deans might not be. Just because we have one standalone list of law school deans does not mean every law school merits them; we reject that as an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. But I think the key point, which you have not addressed, is that the Harvard dean list and article are too long to be combined, while the UBC list is short enough to be included in the main school article, and indeed is included there at present though without the table formatting the standalone list has. So per WP:SPINOUT and WP:SPLIT, there is no reason to maintain it as a separate list instead of just developing it within the school's article. postdlf (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - In reply to Postdlf: The difference between Canadian law and American law is exactly why Harvard's law Dean would not be a very notable for the Canadian legal field. I do admit that having "Harvard" in any title may to some degree have a "wow" factor for some people. That being said, American law is different than Canadian law. Because of this simple reason, I would argue that unlike most other academic fields, much of the work and scholarship that comes from Harvard Law would be irrelevant to Canadians. For this reason, UofT, UBC, McGill, and basically any other Canadian law school would be more relevant to Canadians (especially those in the legal field). American institutions are not the only institutions that matter.CanadaRed (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't understand what any of that has to do with this AFD; this is not Canadian Wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I never suggested that this is Canadian Wikipedia. Wikipedia has articles on Canadian institutions and institutions from many other countries. As I said before, you can't just ignore these other institutions and place all the importance on American institutions. CanadaRed (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, not relevant and not what's going on here. This topic needs to stand on its own; a Canadian law school does not get its own dean's list just because an American law school does, particularly not when the lists differ in terms of length relative to the parent article from which they were split and the notability of the entries. So none of what you have said is in any way responsive to the arguments as to why this list should be redirected or deleted, and you seem to be confused about what "notability" means here. You haven't even acknowledged the fact that this duplicates a section that is already in the law school article, so you're a long way off from explaining why this needs to be separate. postdlf (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:OUTCOMES, since at least some of the information is useful; but to label the office itself as notable is a stretch. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good list. Short? yes. Notable? Definitely. Clean, easy-to-read, provides more details and information than a category could. The "Canada vs. Harvard" arguments are irrelevant. Original deletion argument calls this a category, but it is actually a list article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of British Columbia Faculty of Law#Deans. This would be best included in the main school article - the list is short, and the school article is not overly long. I think a split would be possible in the future if the section becomes long enough, and if it is sourced to reliable sources that could help prove the notability of the position itself. For now, though, I think a merge would be most expedient. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ahihud incident[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Did this incident happen? Maybe. Is it notable? As far as anyone can tell, no. Claims of notability are made in the article but have not been substantiated. I tried a machine translation of the one external link. Google translate is usually pretty good with Hebrew but for some reson this came out the other end as unintelligible garbage. There is what appears to be a local news report about this incident on YouTube at [2]. A woman holds what appears to be a moldy chicken bone and claims it is the remains of this alien. In short, if there really was a mysterious creature that, as claimed by the article, was the subject of intense scrutiny by over fifty scientists from two prestigious institutions, would there not be more evidence than a local news story and... well whatever it is the PDF file is supposed to be. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google Search reveals nothing about this, and the one link that I had added to the articl in good faith,

has sadly been charcterised as 'unreliable' by other contributors. Unless there are credible sources for this, I thinl this article should be deleted on the basis there doesn't appear to be anything like the level of coverage the claimed notability notes in the article would suggest. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it is a matter of the link being unreliable so much as it being unintelligible, at least via machine translation. I've never seen anything in Hebrew come out so garbled. Do we at least know what the link actually is, who published it, etc?

Just tried a little experiment, it seems as if translating it by copy/pasting line-by-line yields better results for some reason. I got a bit out of it, including that the "alien" was apparently found in a pile of cow dung... I can't say I find that particularly encouraging but again it would be helpful to know what this is in the first place if we are to try and determine it's suitability as a reference. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any sources. Looks like a hoax article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it's not a hoax, it is still rubbish. Zero^talk 20:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a Hebrew speaker can find some reliable sources. At the moment we have an apparently made-up text without visible means of support, and no sign of that on the web. Whether hoax, story or what I have no idea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should be deleted based on verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources (WP:RS). The article was completely unsourced and its author has not added any sources (in 11 days) despite numerous requests (by several editors) on his Talk page. The article has been speedied twice, PROD'ed once, and is now up at AFD. There has been more than ample time and notice for the author to provide the reliable sources that none of the rest of us have been able to find. Meters (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably hoax. Marokwitz (talk)

Delete - not a single reference, very likely false. If it's real, then refs can be added and it can be resubmitted. But right now, it's very likely a hoax, and at the very least, isn't referenced. --Activism1234 18:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment After doing more research than I ever thought I'd be doing on UFOs, Here is what I found. I don't think the page is a hoax, although the event clearly was. According to this article (Hebrew, sorry), the authorities announced a few days after the incident that the "creature" was actually cow excrement. This fact's omission from the wiki article makes this the poster-child for WP:UNDUE. (It also makes me more than a little suspicious of the author's intentions). There's also this report, which I assume is the PDF report nom was talking about. The PDF is from the Israeli Extraterrestrial & UFO research Association. Based on the little news coverage I can find of them (all in Hebrew, sorry), they're a standard UFO promoting organization. Their mission is to prove that aliens are real, and they do the usual pseudo-scientific job of providing extraneous detail to promote credibility, quoting people with PHDs in unrelated fields, and cherry picking sources. (For example, why on earth is a pathologist doing the examination on a suspected alien?) The content of the report is basically what's reported on the wiki page. In fact, the report appears to be the only source the wiki page has used to the point where the wiki page is practically just a translation of the report. After spending way too much time on google, those two plus the news report nom already linked to are the only sources I can find on this incident. The Haaretz article st least confirms that the pdf report from eura is not a forgery (apparently prof. Hiss still believes it to be of extra-planetary origin). So the question is does one short mention on channel 2 news and 1 Haaretz article which mentions (but debunks) the incident convey notability? I'm leaning towards no, although my inclusiveist tendencies are leaning towards "maybe" if only because the Haaretz article calls it the most important story relating to UFO "events" in Israel. --Bachrach44 (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. So there was a Haaretz article as claimed, but almost nothing else; and the author seems, we suppose, to have been trying to put up an "amusing" piece on Wikipedia about interplanetary cow-dung. I understand your inclusivist tendencies but respectfully suggest that one report of a silly story doesn't add up to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability, verifiability, undue, possible hoax, and think of the children. --No unique names 18:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be closed tomorrow anyway, but it appears we have a snowball here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate; the article is now at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Rihanna's seventh studio album. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna's seventh studio album[edit]

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

Article about the soon-to-be-named seventh studio album by barbadian recording artist Rihanna. Per WP:HAMMER and several notability issues, i think we should wait until notable information directly related to the article appears. Otherwise, this should not be created yet. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incubate per WP:HAMMER. Def Jam France announced the single and album's release date, which afterwards, the single was pushed back. It appears as if Def Jam did not like that, so who knows if they also pushed back the album. The article just consists of people that have stated that they have worked with Rihanna, which can be covered in her main article. Zac 17:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I removed a bunch of quotes that were useless and information about people saying they were writing songs for Rihanna, as there is no confirmation that she will even record them. Zac 17:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incubate per WP:HAMMER. Without a proper article title, the existence of this seems rather pointless. -- WikHead (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP: HAMMER. Nothing there is confirmed by a reliable source. Electric Catfish² 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking confirmation of album title, track, or release date, specifically confirmed by the artist or label, I recommend deletion in accordance with notability guidelines for unreleased albums. Cindy(talk to me) 18:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct or incubate back to Rihanna or Rihanna discography. If an album is going to drop in November, or even January, that's not actually that far away considering we are quite close to October already. Then the article will have to be re-created again. People are too quick to delete something these days, when a simple re-direct or incubate would more than do the job. AARON• ^TALK 21:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are only relevant when there's an actual title to something. This article was clearly hastily created. Zac 21:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? It's still the album that will be released. It wasn't hastily created. Talk That Talk was created about the same time this time last year, and we didn't know the album title, and was re-directed to her discography or her bio. It would save a lot of hassle, because if we don't find out the name of the album even though there is enough info to create an article about it, we would then just be re-creating a previously deleted page. AARON• ^TALK 21:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why all the drama? Noone will die if the page is deleted. And anyways the fat that it will be recreated in the future is not enough rationale to not deleting this, read WP:HAMMER. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right... and anyone worried about losing any of the existing content should take this opportunity to make a personal copy of their favourite revision while they still have the chance to do so. -- WikHead (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The creator originally worked it out in their sandbox, and then pasted it into the mainspace: User:Robynloud/sandbox. Zac 23:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As 10-pound Hammer says, burn it and hammer the creator. FurrySings (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— articles are expected to meet the requirements prior to being put into mainspace. This article is a clear breach of WP:CRYSTAL. Till 03:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. — Tomica (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate, userfy or redirect. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop... Hammer time!. (Delete). Stalwart111 (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate because it ain't gonna take that long for this to be necessary. Adam 94 (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per WP:NALBUMS: No title, incomplete track listing, and no release date. Information about this unreleased album should remain at the artist's article for now, as there is not yet enough reliably sourced information to warrant a stand-alone article about it. Cliff Smith 23:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
incubate or keep. This article will need to be created in about 2 days anyway.--mikomango mwa! 01:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It will honestly need to be remade in a few hours after the first single is released, so... 60.225.130.127 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the single comes out doesn't mean an album article should be created... What kind of logic is that? The issues still remain. Zac 21:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate Article creator just move the article into your user space until the time is right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - WP:HAMMER is not exactly a policy, but is so strongly accepted here as to be de facto a ruling guideline. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No official album title yet. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Album clearly fails a few things, but there is not enough to warrant incubation IMO. The entire background section is about her previous two sections and nothing related to this one for Christ sakes. --Shadow (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per WP:NALBUMS: No title yet and no release date confirmed. VítoR™ • (T) 23:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Than Fire[edit]

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

Non notable production group. No sources found that are reliable or independent of the group. NtheP (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FurrySings (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 05:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V. K. Choudhry[edit]

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

I am struggling to see how this meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR. Google searches reveal very few hits and most of those look to be of a self-published nature. As indeed does our article, where a conflict of interest seems likely. Sitush (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a passing mention in the news. That's about it. Not to be confused with the scientist of the same name, nor the prisoner of the same name. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also can't find meaningful sources about the author rather than the others with similar names. I'm willing to reconsider if somebody can isolate the author better. BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav Blanter[edit]

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

The first two references are broken; references #3,#4, #5 and #7 look like some kind of lists; reference #8 links to Wikipedia 67.169.11.79 (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - Fails to clear the GNG bar.~~ The bio of him on Russian Wikipedia claims he's written 100 scientific articles, so I'll be happy to stand down if it can be shown he clears the special guidelines for academics. Carrite (talk)

Standing down, per David Eppstein below. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is something odd about the citations. The article claims an ISI h-index of 22 (which would be a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1). However on Google Scholar I can only find cites of 64, 28, 24, 24 and a few single digit hits, which is well below pass. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- How are you doing the search? When I search for author:y-blanter I get a top citation count of 1367 for "Shot noise in mesoscopic conductors", and a total of five publications over 100 citations each, well above pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks, I was clicking on the link at the top. Searching GS for Y M Blanter I find an h-index of 28, a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment**:"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." In this article I see no multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Which criteria applies here? and why? --67.169.11.252 (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Prof#C1: see 2.5 cm above. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I guess you're right, but the article should state something about h-index.--67.169.11.252 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't tend to mention that explicitly in our articles, for one thing because it's too subject to change. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually does mention his h-index (contrary to convention). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. The high citation record shows a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and the Russian story concerning his Wikipedia activities adds some depth to what would otherwise be a bare cv. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that imposing "over one thousand blocks and deleting thousands of pages" on Russian Wikipedia adds to the notability of this academic? --17:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.11.252 (talk)
Of course not. What I believe is that being described as doing so in a reliably published mainstream magazine article adds to his notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blanter did give advise in the Moscow Times January 30, 2007 to not talk too loudly in Russia's churches. However, the topic does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:45, 14 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeel Hussain[edit]

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

Living person. Accused of complicity in a terrorist plot but no record of any conviction. No other claim to fame. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete Thanks very much for this. This guy was acquitted ("the jury accepted his defence that he was an unwitting victim of someone else's conspiracy - and that he himself had no role in what happened.) and we should definitely not have an article on him, he's had enough problems. I've added his acquittal to the article. Oh hell, looks like the guy who was acquitted is [3] but that's not the same person, although the same name, as [4], [5], [6] is it? I'll remove my edit. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one on the Guantanamo articles ever said they were voting delete out of sympathy for those detained, but I always suspected there were some. You could not be more wrong, in my opinion. The press is filled with accusations of crimes, but criminals being found not guilty, not so much. Vindication, which they can receive, can be more important to those unjustly held and charged than anonymity, which they have lost forever. Anarchangel (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PERP, relatively minor role in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot (not even mentioned in that article). January (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the Nabeel Hussain who is the subject of this article was jailed for 8 years for "engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorist acts" related to the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. He is not the same person as the Nabeel Hussain in this BBC article who was acquitted in an unrelated case in 2007. January (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please amend the article with the reference you have supplied. I wasn't aware of it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is to say, the conviction should go into the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot article, even if this one is deleted. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:29, 9 September 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) 13:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination; however, editors should also feel free to try a bold redirect and see if it sticks. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Ahmed Nass[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Seems to be a vanity article--there is already an article for his company, Nass Corporation B.S.C.. Most of the sources are self-published, e.g., company websites. The exception is that he was named one of the top 300 most influential Arabs by "Arabian Business," an award which does not seem to reach the level of WP:ANYBIO. A Google News archive search shows a bunch of articles in the Gulf Daily News that are mainly press releases about the company, with quotes attributed to his name. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. The independent source mentioned says he is "one of the construction titans of the Gulf, not just Bahrain, and one of the region’s most respected business figures." That indicates notability, but the article should be merged pending better independent sources. – Fayenatic London 11:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi, thanks for your comments. This feels more like a Delete and redirect to me. My reasoning is that he does not have notability outside of his company. Most of the material in this bio is not at all notable, e.g., he has a lot of children, he used to work in a local garage. What would you copy over to the article about his company? The reference you are highlighting does have some grand adjectives. But it's just a blurb, and by ranking him 294, it's saying that 293 others are more notable. Indeed, if you just focus on the Construction & Industry category, he is 57th on the list. In other words, this list says that 56 other Arabs in construction and industry are more notable than him. We also don't know if this is an independent source or who wrote the blurb. It could be a Who's Who type publication. Finally, it seems likely that the original author of the nominated article had a COI. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:36, 10 September 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) 13:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Khaltourina[edit]

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

After pruning this article (ALL the content was "sourced" to the subject's own work, sometimes with links to buy the book, and it made rather grandiose claims about her importance) I did the various Google searches--in Books, since she's an academic, and in News, since supposedly she is a public figure--and came up with nothing, nothing at all, with her name in both spellings, with and without middle name. What we have is a puff piece for a person who, as far as I can tell, doesn't meet the GNG or PROF. I'll stand corrected if such evidence as indices and impacts are cited, reliably. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dear Drmies, you should rather google Scholar. The results would be quite different, see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Khaltourina&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Phanerozoic (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, feel free to peruse the history to see what it was like--this is the version advertised in the DYK section in February. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?. GS gives cites of 49, 53, 24, 18 and then peters out. Too early for WP:Prof#C1. Is there anything else? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. But also do not forget to GS Халтурина - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%D0%A5%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 Orangasli (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Orangasli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

These cites are no different. Xxanthippe (talk).

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) 13:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm getting a WP:SOCK vibe from the two keep !votes here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rotimi Ogunjobi[edit]

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

In my view, the subject fails both the General notability guidelines for biographies and the Author notability guidelines. After much searching both under his full name (Rotimi Ogunjobi) and his nickname (Timi Ogunjobi), I can find no biographical information which is not self-published. Typical example. There are no reviews of his work in any independently published reliable sources. Virtually all of his work is self-published through various vanity publishers or his own online ventures one of which is Lagos Literary and Arts Journal. Note the user name of the article's creator and sole author [7]. His only independently published work appears to consist of three short stories. One appears in an anthology of "new and emerging writers" [8] published by Critical, Cultural and Communications Press (2010). One in Queen's Quarterly (2002) [9], and one in an anthology published in Nigeria (1999) [10]. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Voceditenore makes a persuasive argument. Three short stories is not sufficient for WP:AUTHOR and does not seem to meet general notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:48, 7 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to List of cryptids. 11:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Omajinaakoos[edit]

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

There are references, yes, but note that all of them are from the May 21 2010 timeline, with only one from May 25, 2010. Still, the time span of the coverage is too short. All refs died out after May 2010; I can find no more before or after that period.This is just another decomposed lake animal that got a short puff of attention. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 02:14, 7 September 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) 14:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If more coverage had been about the cryptid as a legend rather than as a flash in the pan incident, I would've said keep. "Mystery" animals that are discovered to be known species are a dime a dozen. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of cryptids - the legend seems reasonable enough to include there, not so much the dead mink. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to the list works for me. I would cut down the amount of lines on the mink maybe, but not remove it completely, I notice the CSM source is pretty good at giving a critical discussion (rather than the usual, "OMG ZOMBIEMINKZ IZ COMING" of other newspapers), so the weight is probably there. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:07, 21 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The flash-in-the-pan event of a dead animal is not notable, of course. But, the actual creature itself does not seem to be notable as well. The only actual mention of the name "Omajinaakoos" comes from a single man, whose very brief interview was posted in a couple of the sources, who gives the name and claims that one of his relatives found one 50 years ago. Many of the articles about the incident do not mention that name at all, and upon searching for other references, the only time this name actually comes up at all are just in reference to the same incident, from this one individual's account. So, it fails the GNG as far as having a individual article, and I would also be opposed to merging the information into List of cryptids or another such article, simply because there is nothing to actually verify the creature's supposed existance outside of this single account. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many cryptids are spurious extrapolations from a single account, so it's not completely undue to include it. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dragonlance characters#Renowned groups. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Solamnia[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Dragonlance characters#Renowned groups – possible search term, but I can't find any reliable secondary sources for the group. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think that sources exist for this one, but if they fail to emerge then a merge to List of Dragonlance characters#Renowned groups (as was previously done with all the other Dragonlance characters) seems like a better alternative to deletion. BOZ (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've found two mentions of the group here and here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marge to List of Dragonlance characters#Renowned groups. The article and references consist of nothing but pure plot summary. Looking for additional sources, I am also finding nothing that isn't either first party (as in, from an actual Dragonlance book), or merely a mention in a plot summary of one of the books. However, it is a reasonable search term for a fairly popular franchise, so redirecting to the general character list would be appropriate. Any merging done, though, would need to be done very selectively, since much of the current information is fancruft and trivia, and would need to be trimmed considerably when merged to the character list. Rorshacma (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I have searched and I have found some. So to say it hasn't revealed any indicates an incomplete search. I am currently evaluating my results to make sure there is significant coverage in these documents/citations. Don't assume that because it is not easy to find that the sources do not exist. Web Warlock (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if appropriate RS'es are found, else merge per the above. No argument has been put forward that this article cannot be improved through regular editing, to include merging as appropriate, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Dragonlance characters#Renowned groups. I have found sources, but they only mention them in passing. Web Warlock (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only One (Ria Ritchie song)[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. This song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG - not enough significant coverage, article relies on song reviews etc. and has no real importance, has not charted or won any major awards. Giant Snowman 07:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 7 September 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) 13:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. FurrySings (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find minor blogs discussing the track at this point. Inadequate notability-worthy coverage. BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. --BDD (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Amir Seyed Ahmadpour[edit]

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

Article written like curriculum vitae/resume, possible conflict of interest as the creator's username is similar to the article title. jfd34 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a speedy delete of this article, it meets the criteria under CSD A7 --JetBlast (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the article speedily deleted, I'll give this a procedural close. --BDD (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Hotel, Gibraltar[edit]

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

Contested prod. Prod reason was "WP:NOTTRAVEL: "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like." If there is anything notable about the hotel beyond being a hotel, the article should state this and focus on this. As it stands, this is a WP:NOT violation." The article was subsequently improved, but the additions so far are unsourced speculation[11] and a one-line mention in one book[12]. Looking at available sources, the same thing is mentioned in two other books, also as an extremely passing mention. Other sources for this hotel are many travel guides. Apart from those short mentions, covered by NOTTRAVEL, I haven't found a single source that gives any attention to the Bristol Hotel. Many mentions (similar to "X stayed at the Bristol Hotel"), but not a single source where the Bristol Hotel, or events at it, are the focus of significant attention. Fram (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a prominent and historic hotel in this key entrepot and strategic junction of the British Empire. There seem to be plenty of sources out there and I've only just got started on fleshing out this stub. The nomination appears to be deliberate disruption of work-in-progress, without any attempt at tagging or proper discussion on the talk page with the various experienced editors involved. Hotels are obviously of interest to travellers but this doesn't mean that we don't cover them. We have numerous categories and articles devoted to hotels such as Category:Hotels by city. The only reason to pick on this one seems to be some nasty Wikipolitics. Warden (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the very worst merge into an article Hotels in Gibraltar. The Rock hotel is also notable BTW, and both are significant architecturally. Hotels have a rough time on wikipedia but I consider the more notable historic ones as every bit as valid encyclopedic material as cathedrals and theatres..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poorly sourced commercial spam, which probably would not exist if not for the You Can Be A Winner Gibraltarpedia project. Wikipedia is not a travel guidebook. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't start articles on hotels which don't seem to be notable architecturally or as colonial type hotels. look at the place [13], its a notable landmark in Gibraltar. Obviously this article is going to have difficulty staying now though as people are convinced there is some sort of paid tourist promotion going on and hotels are probably the first port of call for deletion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is being in Gibraltar now a deletion criteria? I don't think so! Apart from that it satisfies WP:GNG. Agathoclea (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two most important hotels are Bristol Hotel and the Rock . Both are notable as colonial architectural buildings in their own right and as major landmarks in Gibraltar.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that this article satisfies WP:GNG, architecturally and as a colonial era hotel still in operation. If it is informative to a tourist or business traveler, so be it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in need of some obvious expansion (history, architect, etc) but it appears notable per Warden, Dthomsen8, and Dr. Blofeld. Ryan Vesey 20:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the article needs work but this doesn't qualify it for deletion. Meets WP:GNG. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 22:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Warden; clearly satisfies the requirements. Prioryman (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: obviously notable. Per Dr. Blofeld. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems notable to me too. Kumioko (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources appear to exist to make it notableand have it pass WP:GNG. Multiple sources. Book sources. Sources dating over an extended period of time. Sources where the hotel is mentioned in the name in the media. These all go towards establishing notability. Article has sources. Not seeing the advertising nature of the article. Not seeing anything that would result in commercial gain for the hotel as a result of the article existing. (Unless the argument is any business that has an article gets commercial gain by virtue of the articles existence.) If there is wording that is advertisement, the correct answer is to improve the pose, not to delete the article. --LauraHale (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A number of people have commented on this hotel being notable architecturally. The article says nothing about the architecture of the hotel (apart from it being a white colonial building), or of it being listed or otherwise noted architecturally. Can anyone here enlighten me what these comments are based on then? Fram (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't mean literally that its architecture is somehow fascinating and discussed in books, we mean it is a "notable historic structure" which if you look back through the archives is clearly of note to Gibraltar's history, especially its war functions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So "notable as colonial architectural buildings in their own right" doesn't mean what it says. Thanks for confirming this. The other aspects (war function and so on) can be discussed, but it is easier and more correct if only pertinent (or supported) arguments are used. Fram (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would generally judge any fairly large colonial building in the centre of any town to probably be of some notability to the history of the town. I don't think its a listed building though which I had thought likely and as somebody said below its not exactly Raffles in terms of a notable white colonial building, but I believe enough sources have been compiled to make the article acceptable even if not ideal. I think you may have trouble with other hotels apart from Rock Hotel though on Gibraltar, one or two may be borderline, others may not be notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a notable historic structure in Gibraltar. While the rescue efforts have gone a long way in showing notability, and those efforts are entirely laudable, some have added information that does not appear to encyclopedic. For example, information on historic room rate has been added; such information does not appear to be encyclopedic; this is not a travel wiki. Cbl62 (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is hardly as notable as, say, the Ritz or Raffles, but it gets across the threshold of notability due to some sustained media coverage over time. I'd suggest pruning the notability-by-association stuff about the various famous people who've stayed in the hotel though. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (in fact WP:SNOWBALL). Accusations of spamming are both fallacious and pointy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is informative and forms part of Gibraltar's heritageToromedia (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ditto Toromedia. --Ipigott (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --do ncr am 20:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a future merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Bastion Road[edit]

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

Contested prod (with as reason "I don't do prods", for what it's worth). Nominated because "No indication of why this is supposed to be a notable road. No sources about the road are provided, only very passing mentions." Looking at the article and looking for further sources reveals that this road has some buildings, including at one time a school; has had work being done to it over the years, and that there live people, are located clubs, touristic companies, 2 parking spaces for disabled people, and that there was a minor dispute about the removal of parking spaces. Basically, this reads like virtually any other city or town street in the world. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A google map view actually shows it to be one of the major roads of Gibraltar see here. I'd imagine there would be plenty of resources in Gibraltar library or government documents which could be used to expand this fully.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that map, the main roads seem to be Europa Road, Main Street, perhaps Queensway Street, ... This one doesn't seem to be at the same level of importance though (as far as such a thing can be seen from Google Maps, WP:OR comes into play here). As for your choice of sources, they are primary ones and don't help in establishing notability. Fram (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it can't be expanded further I think a merger into a Roads in Gibraltar would be the perfect solution. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that that is a redirect to Transport in Gibraltar and doesn't discuss individual roads. To include a minor road there, only because we had an article for it, seems to be a case of WP:UNDUE. Fram (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're still an asshole then and haven't changed your belligerent ways. The idea is to turn it into a decent article on the major roads of Gibraltar. The article would equally cover each road so UNDUE would hardly be the case. Have some common sense Fram.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Warden (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Fram's comments are not very creative, Dr. Blofeld, but please realize that this is a public discussion about a road in Gibraltar that will be preserved in our archives. You should comment as a professional (I know you are one), not as a furious kid, and above all, you should focus on the topic of this article. Nobody is interested in your outbursts. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vejvančický. Fram and I have a long history in which he has often been unfavorable to my suggestions to merge articles, and I'm not "angry" in any manner or form. You can see this by the fact I approached this AFD with a comment and a constructive suggestions rather than an angry STRONG KEEP HOW DARE YOU!!! type response. I think he knows me well enough to know that I don't mean it in an offensive way but just to prod him that he is again being indifferent to what could be quite productive and that he is excessively citing wikipedia guidelines and that I'd much rather discuss how to productively use the content with him than be at odds. Its absolutely not your place to say anything and I'm baffled as to why you have, I can't possibly think of the positive benefits of your comments, it comes across as haughtiness and brandishing the "civility" stick which as many on here have previously said, the expectations of extreme professionalism and super civility on this website is one of its biggest flaws.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public discussion about the encyclopedic notability of a road in Gibraltar, my place to comment as well as yours. I know nothing about the history of your disputes with Fram and I'm not interested. I don't play WP civility games, I just wonder what does this have to do with the Flat Bastion Road? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answering on Vejvansicky's and Fram's talk page before anybody else gets all civil on me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is a major road in a historic city. Its name is distinctive and evocative and should remain a blue link to assist our readership. Whether the content pertaining to the road is substantial or not is of little importance in satisfying Wikipiedia's role as a gazeteer. Here's an amusing item about the trouble that residents of this location have with marauding apes. Warden (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Major road in a historic city" doesn't have anything to do with notability, and is too vague to be any sort of criteria; I think all cities would claim "historic" merit in some form or fashion. More importantly, where are the sources in the article that show notability? There are a whole lot of sources in the article, but not a single one gives any notability to the article. They are local newspapers talking about construction, or books that are not about the road, and only mention it in passing, if that, which is trivial coverage. The article fails WP:GNG by a long shot, However distinctive and evocative it may be. - Sudo Ghost 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Keep (or merge and improve the redirect Roads in Gibraltar) (I believe the redirect is not set in stone, Fram). This is verifiable geographical information ([14], [15], [16]) and I don't see any benefits in deleting this kind of content. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you listed are local newspaper articles about construction happening on the road; every local newspaper informs about any road that has construction. That verifies that the road does in fact exist, but that does not make a road notable in any way. I would find it odd if a newspaper didn't report on such a thing, it's completely routine. - Sudo Ghost 07:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Warden; clearly satisfies notability requirements. Prioryman (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge, waiting to see whether sources can be found. --Rs chen 7754 02:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major road in a historic city. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's repeating the "it's a major road", but where are the sources that indicate this? It's a road, but that's about it. Fram (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it has to be a major road? As long as it's notable the criteria for retention are met. Prioryman (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's a different argument. At least three people (Dr. Blofeld, Colonel Warden and Thine Antique Pen), and a "per Warden" from Prioryman, argued that the article was about a major road. No evidence to support this has been presented (yes, Google Maps, but that's hardly convincing). I also disagree with e.g. LauraHale's opinion, but that's a disagreement based on the value one gives to some sources and whether they convey notability or not. But this, that it's a major road, is just completely unsupported (see the statement below by Ryan Vesey for some thoughts on this). Fram (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well defining it as a "major" road is subjective of course. It isn't the Main Street of Gibraltar and is of lesser notability than Europa Road which you could probably define as more notable. But I'm pretty sure historically Flat Bastion Road has been very familiar to Gibraltarians and the military as it was the residence of many esteemed folk living on the Rock and some institutions. So that's why I define it as a road of note, and not just any old street of any town.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, I don't have your access to sources on 13th century fortifications in Europe. (I'm in Australia and not a military historian.) Can you provide me some more information regarding the importance of the road to the city's 13th fortifications and the later siege of the area? As you've said it isn't important, I'd like to know more about this role to be convinced to change my mind. --LauraHale (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that the road was constructed in the 13th century. I can't find any mention of the road in the source [17] (neither "flat bastion" nor the supposed older Spanish name "Senda del Moro"), but I may be missing it. I can tell you though that the 64 page book "The Fortifications of Gibraltar 1068-1945" by Clive Finlayson (also used as a source in the article) does not mention Flat Bastion Road (the Flat Bastion is mentioned, but the road isn't: [18]). I can't prove a negative of course, but I haven't found any evidence that this road played any role of importance in the fortifications or the siege. Fram (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I was writing the above while you were expanding the article, so my comments don't relate to the latest version of the article. Anyway, you have now added that the road was called "Baluarte de Santiago", but as far as I can tell, that's the name of the Bastion, not of the Road (see also User:Ecemaml/Nursery/List of Gibraltar placenames; not a reliable source, but it happens to state the same). The given book source even states "The Baluarte de Santiago is a flat bastion". Fram (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the same applies to " In 1704, the road was known as Santa Cruz y plataforma de Santiago." No, the bastion was thus known. There is no source given about the road prior to 1830 or thereabouts, and no evidence that the road played any important role in the sige or fortifications. Fram (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Create new articles Aside from the apes issue, nothing has been used that specifically talks about the road. The article currently lists a number of interesting things related to the road, but nothing that shows notability for the road. Roads in Gibraltar should be created and content related to the road should be included there. Flat Bastion Magazine should also be created from content in the notable buildings section. Ryan Vesey 21:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear like a notable road even though it passes notable sites. Dough 48 72 22:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Delaware Dirt Track 45570 is?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are a number of sources from newspapers in English and Spanish about the road specifically, including construction on it, references to the history of the road dating back to 1828, and a number of book references. While it was not adopted, it would have passed WP:STREETS. It appears to pass the notability for roads specified on that page. It also appears to pass Wikipedia:Notability_(geographical_features)#Roadways. Given this, I think keep is the correct response. --LauraHale (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you would be hard-pressed to find an instance where construction on a road wouldn't be mentioned in a newspaper, that's pretty routine local news and doesn't show any notability IMO. - SudoGhost 04:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference being discussion construction as it happens (routine "traffic disrupted because of construction work ect") vs an article discussing the history of a road which is not routine. Agathoclea (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which article discusses the history of this road? I haven't seen it, but I may of course have missed it. Such an article would halp greatly to finally establish the notability of the road. Fram (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Laura. How often do I create a non notable article Ryan? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close to never; however, I still haven't seen the case made. This road doesn't seem to meet our requirements. The articles that are about the road specifically reference construction. That is a trivial mention that doesn't affect notability. There are newspaper articles about construction on most of the roads in my town; however, none of them are notable. Roads that are notable for the locations that exist on them should be referenced in a way that shows that. This is not a Fifth Avenue or a Champs-Élysées. Ryan Vesey 23:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit when I started it I was confusing it with Europa Road, I was thinking of the main road and the wall and the apes which is Europa I think. But our duty here is to assess notability based on coverage in reliable sources. A fellow wikipedian, an experienced one at that told me he grew up in Kentrigg and it is non notable. I'm accepting of articles on any district or road providing it has coverage in multiple sources. Give that we aren't paper I think we can cover towns in as much detail as can be imagined providing the content is sourceable. My feeling is that wikipedia is a much more impressive resource for having such articles than not. And no, you won't find this amount of coverage in sources for every street or every town. The vast majority you won't, that's how notability should be decided. When I look at articles for deletion I always ask myself first, does this article damage or worsen wikipedia as a resource..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Gibraltar is not a big place and its geography measn that the north-south roads run horizontally, while the east-west ones tend to be steep. The article has a reasonable amount of content, and until that content is relocated elsewhere, we need to keep the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the many good reasons given above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable road. Anne (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I raised some concerns above and on the talk page of the article about the first paragraph of the history section, which is rather important wrt notability of the road, but which, if I am correct, is not about the road at all, but about the Flat Bastion itself instead. Can some people please check this and report their conclusions here? While not every detail of an article needs to be correct for an AfD, such a crucial part should be checked and taken into account before a decision is made, in my opinion. Fram (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the road was originally constructed to service the bastion, which was comparatively remote. We don't seem to have a separate article about the bastion and so it makes sense to accumulate the material under this heading. Per WP:PRESERVE, this is not a reason to delete. Warden (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "it seems" from what exactly? Fram (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From The Lancet in 1830 which comments on the prevalence of Gibraltar fever at the Flat Bastion guardhouse, which was serviced by this road. Warden (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR much: this article doesn't mention Flat Bastion Road, never mind the fact that it would indicate that the road "was originally constructed to service the bastion". Fram (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- And by the way, inserting incorrect information in an article already up for AfD, and then claiming that the article can't be deleted per PRESERVE of that information, is gaming the system big time. Fram (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That depends what game you're playing. Some of us are here to build the encyclopedia and take pleasure in the accumulation of historical information for its own sake. I'm now quite interested to know why the road is also called Mr Bourne's ramp (La Cuesta de Mr. Bourne). Who was Mr Bourne and what was his significance? Perhaps this information is in some local history not known to Google? By preserving the article with its various tidbits and leads, we are able to gradually expand our coverage. Why should this information be only available to admins like yourself? (deletion really means admin-only as nothing is actually deleted). How would such a restriction assist our purpose? Warden (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding original research and badly interpreted sources from our readers and search engines? Now how could that possible be a good thing... Fram (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already presents interesting historical facts and is still being expanded. In properly documenting the assets of a city, principal or historic roads also require coverage. --Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In light of Ipigott's first sentence, I have no comment about the state of the article when it was created (I've not checked the history), but its condition at the present time admirably demonstrates notability. Almost every street will get some news coverage, but when your street gets coverage in multiple books published hundreds or thousands of miles away from it and centuries apart from each other, you definitely have a notable street. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See [19]♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I looked at a few of the books, one is about "a flat bastion", not Flat Bastion Road, another was about a school that just happened to have the address of Flat Bastion Road, and literally nothing else was mentioned about the road. Not even the blogspot blog gives any indepth coverage, and that's not even a reliable source. I've looked through quite a few of the sources, and the only ones that even begin to address the article's subject are local primary sources. WP:GNG requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources, maybe I'm missing these sources but I don't see a single one. - Sudo Ghost 04:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've evaluated Fram's comment. I do not find it very compelling. I've not changed my mind as a result. The history, the sources, etc. for me demonstrate notability, historical relevance, etc. A stronger argument needs to be made that these factors identified by me should be ignored for me to change my mind. I've yet to see any additional compelling evidence that Fram has done additional research on the history of the road, examined texts at libraries, etc. to suggest a lack of potential available sources that would support this. Multiple languages. Hundreds of years of history. Just not impressed enough to ignore it to change to delete. --LauraHale (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources? I've looked through a whole lot of sources in the article, and not one seems to show even the slightest bit of notability, although it's possible I'm just missing the ones that give notability. Please see my reply to Nyttend directly above your comment. - Sudo Ghost 07:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bullshit. Sorry to be so blunt, but this is utter bullshit. There are no "hundreds of years of history", the oldest source about the road is from 1830. All the older sources do not mention the road at all. You based your keep on this misconception, I showed where this was false, and you simply ignore this. You are now asking me to prove a negative, which is a nonsensical request. Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to the people wanting to keep an article to show that sources exist, and that the sources given in the article are correctly represented. Could you please, for once, explain why the completely incorrect first paragraph of the history section is still present in the article? Why noone who is so interested in this article and does everything to keep it is apparently interested in getting it right, only in getting it kept? If you want to be taken seriously and your arguments given any weight at all, be honest, in discussion technique and in the use of sources. Fram (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the article's talk page and we're not here to work upon the article. The purpose and scope of this discussion is purely to decide whether an admin should be empowered to use the delete function to change the status of this material and all its edit history so that only admins may read it. Argumentation about the fine details of the article and its sources are therefore inappropriate. It is sufficient for this debate that editors have determined that there's enough here that we may reasonably retain the material for further work. Warden (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions about the sources of articles are inappropriate at an AfD? Editors have determined that many of the sources used in the article (and all the significant non-trivial ones) are not about the road. Ignoring that because it doesn't fit your "keep" opinion is just hoping that the closing admin will look at the votecount only, and ignore the actual merit (or, in many cases here, lack thereof) of the expressed opinions. I note that you haven't replied above to your claim about what is said in the "Lancet" article either, one of many claims about sources for this article which turn out to be incorrect. Fram (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Argumentation about the fine details of the article and its sources are therefore inappropriate." I'm somewhat shocked by that, I had to read it a few times to make sure I understood you correctly. Discussing the issues with the article's sources...is inappropriate at AfD? I don't know if you meant something else and got confused while writing it, but if the article's sources do not in any way show even the slightest bit of notability, AfD is the place to discuss it, and practice has shown that when sourcing issues are brought up at AfD, the editors that choose to ignore those issues find that their comments are not given as much weight in determining the consensus. "It is sufficient for this debate that editors have determined that there's enough here that we may reasonably retain the material for further work." Not by a long shot is this anywhere close to accurate, as shown by the lack of adequate sources for the article, and the editors asking for any sources that would show notability. If we were to go by the assertion that discussing the article's sourcing issues is somehow inappropriate at AfD, then perhaps that would have some measure of truth in the most basic sense of what you said. However, WP:N requires adequate sources, and this article comes nowhere close to meeting that very basic requirement. Editors ignoring the sourcing issue to proclaim that the article is "a major road in a historic city" means nothing towards showing notability if there isn't a single source to show that notability. - Sudo Ghost 20:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've looked through the sources in the article, and read every keep !vote in the AfD, but despite assertions that the article is notable, I don't see anybody explaining which references show notability other than local construction notifications. The fact that local newspapers have reported construction on the road is as routine as a newspaper gets; you would be hard pressed to find a single newspaper that wouldn't report construction on any road, that doesn't make a road notable in any way. There are many references about a school that happens to be on Flat Bastion Road, but not a single one of these sources goes into any detail about the road at all, the only time the road is ever mentioned is through describing the school's address. That is about as trivial as a source can get, and WP:GNG requires significant coverage, even if the school were notable, that notability does not get passed down to the road just because it happens to be on the road. Another reference was a census; that people live on the road does not make it notable. It's possible that I've overlooked some references that everyone else is seeing, and if that's the case please point them out to be, because the sources I've reviewed come nowhere close to establishing notability per WP:GNG, the most basic notability guideline. - Sudo Ghost 08:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does mildly amuse me that nobody, with the exception of perhaps one or two Gibraltar fellows perhaps, could have given a monkey's testicle about this article but for the Gibraltarpedia scandal. It would be the sort of article that would grow mould and need a jolly good dusting when somebody new bothered to edit it in like 2019. So yeah, if it was truly notable it would probably have got more edits and expanded at some point... But that's the case with most wikipedia articles. Even some of the worlds most famous rockin streets like Sunset Strip are in dire condition and poorly edited though.. Probably more amusing or downright worrying is that Sunset Strip is unsourced and this has 32 sources LOL!! But it is a fact that the vast majority of the world could not give a barbary ape's right nostril about this road.. But that's the case with villages in rural Turkey and the Solomon Islands... Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary however has had over 19,000 hits already within a few weeks of me creating it.. "take pleasure in the accumulation of information for its own sake" is exactly why we accumulate articles such as this and villages for the sake that somebody somewhere might want to read about it and get the same pleasure that wikipedia has a half decent article on something rather obscure. I don't know about other wikipedia but for me that's one of the most enjoyable aspects of the project that we are not paper and can explore a gigantic range of topics within reason if sourceable and for me decent articles on architectural pieces.roads etc which are not exactly high importance helps broaden this appeal and demonstrates what we could potentially cover. For me projects like Monmouthedia and Gibraltarpedia do exactly this and seek to bring lesser notable buildings and roads into coverage. I think its exciting to try to cover towns in this way and would like to see every settlement on the planet working towards a detailed coverage of their towns. Should we perhaps focus on getting major world streets up to GA status first? Absolutely. But wikipedia will always be built in a higgledy piggledy fashion with some bizarre choices for articles started at the expense of far more notable content which gets sidelined. But above all it is rather impressive how many sources have been found mentioning the road even if not in extensive detail..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"But above all it is rather impressive how many sources have been found mentioning the road even if not in extensive detail.." No, it is even more impressive how many sources have been found that do not mention the road at all but are included as if they do anyway. Fram (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ever ate a Birdseye Waffle Fram? Looks just like the cellhouse doors of Alcatraz funnily enough. Well I've been guilty of the same sort of thing... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A non-controversial topic that contains areas of historical interest which are well worth developing. Wikipedia is a work in progress and I don't believe that anyone here can state with certainty that this won't develop into a very interesting article (even if it only ends up being one pearl on a lovely strand). Is it possible to add some sort of "let's revisit it in six months and discuss deleting it then" tag (mainly because I'm fairly certain that sources will continue to appear as people dig and discover)? As an aside, it really is a wonderful feeling to dive into the sources to research, and then add to an article such as this—all with the thought that you are helping to build an encyclopaedia. As a second aside, whenever I want to reassure myself that all is wrong with the Wiki-world (e.g. after watching delete discussions such as this), I simply go to List of Pokémon characters, pick one at random, and read. Today, it's Pidgey. Did you guys realise that "Pidgey appeared in the first television episode, Pokémon, I Choose You!, when the main character, Ash Ketchum, attempts to catch one. He fails when it uses its Gust attack to blow him away and escapes. Afterwards, it uses its Sand Attack to blind Ash, allowing it to get away"? Golly. GFHandel ♬ 21:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point out a single reference that contributes towards the notability of the article? "Historical interest" doesn't appear to be supported by a single source in the article. - Sudo Ghost 02:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My statement above still stands. On the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum, I would consider myself to be more inclusionist, that's why my comment suggested an outcome where the information was retained. I feel like the article is coming along nicely and I hope that it is kept even though I disagree with any argument offered so far for keeping the article. My comment earlier and now isn't based on my desire for this to be an article, but is based on my interpretation of policy which I feel doesn't allow this article. Ryan Vesey 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ipigott, GFHandel and others. Regardless of highly subjective personal interpretations of WP:N and other similar bureaucratic stuff, this absolutely non-controversial, totally "neutral", non-Advertisement article (with plenty of independent verifiable sources mentioning the subject of the article) was interesting and educational "waste of time" for me as an "average WikiPedia reader". Of course, I'm merely speaking from a personal "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers" point-of-view so some people (who might believe that "Wikipedia exists to satisfy the strict rules that govern it") might still disagree with my suggestion ;-) Rndomuser (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have saved at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road a version of the article how it should really look like, with all incorrect sources, unreliable sources, or sources not about the road or anything on the road removed. It drops to 13 sources instead of 32. Most of those are rather trivial or in passing as well. Where is the notability? Where are the centuries of history? Where is the role this road has played in Gibraltar's past or present? What makes this a major road? Fram (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. De728631 (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Counties North[edit]

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

Fails WP:NRU. Insufficient reliable secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Also is not an article as it is currently written. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 5 September 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) 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is one of a set of rugby union leagues catalogued at English rugby union system. I've added a little context and a ref. I think it's highly disruptive to nominate a single article for deletion out of such a large series of articles. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 21:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a directory not an article. Fails WP:N and WP:NOTDIR.--Charles (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Janet says, this is a league which forms part of the English rugby union pyramid and for this reason alone it should not be deleted. I have also expanded the article be adding an infobox as well as listing the clubs participating in the league this season.(Rillington (talk) 19:23, 20 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Last relist. I would like to hear about whether a merge to a broader-scope article may be a suitable outcome. This discussion has implications for many of the other articles listed in Template:Rugby union in England, so I feel it is worth taking the extra time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No - there should be no merging of individual league articles and each league should have its own separate article, as has always been the case. Individual articles for each rugby union division in England has always worked perfectly well, as it does for the Welsh rugby union system and for that matter, the English non league football pyramid. This article should never have been proposed for deletion in the first place and to underline once again, the article (and all the other RU individual leagues articles) should be kept.(Rillington (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Per Janet and Rillington. As it is part of the English Rugby pyramid, it shouldn't be deleted. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with other league articles. Delete or Merge - with other league articles.--Bob247 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it is part of the English rugby union league system and we should be giving the complete picture. Give people some time to develop the article. Jowaninpensans (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what Janet and I have tried to do and I also tried to do with other leagues whose articles had been very basic, such as National League 2 North to ensure that all leagues have an infobox, introduction and list of teams currently in that league.

I noticed recently that some of the lower leagues did not have articles. As there is no indication that there was a notability issue with the lower league articles already there (I previously had a set of non league football articles binned on notability grounds just after joining wikipedia which is why I looked for any indications of notability issues with these articles I decided to create) I decided to take the time to create starter articles for those leagues which did not have an article, consisting of an infobox, a brief introduction and a list of teams participating this season. I completed this task a few days ago. It never occurred to me that an administrator would propose binning all of them (worded as a "broader-scope article", presumably one article which would result in all of my articles being deleted) despite there being no actual breach of any wikipedia rules or guidelines regarding English rugby union leagues. If these articles are binned this would be the second time that a lot of my work was deleted and this time it would not be due to any previously set rules about notability. It would make me think that no matter what contribution I make or article I create, it seems destined for the bin and that would make it very likely this time that I would leave wikipedia because here I haven't actually broken any rules.(Rillington (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

PS I've just noticed that the majority of my articles which you are proposing to be deleted en masse (which you seem to be indicating would be replaced by this broader-scope article which presumably would be one article about all of the regional RU leagues in England) have already become part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union prohect (see the talk pages of the majority of the articles I've recently created, including all of the Yorkshire, Durham/Northumberland, Essex, Somerset, Beds/Bucks/Oxon and Gloucestershire articles I've created) and if they had been considered to be not notable then the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union would not have accepted the articles as part of this project. In addition, my articles about the Yorkshire leagues have also become part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire project and the north east articles have been accepted as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject North East England project. Maybe therefore it can be explained to me why this discussion is even taking place, given that my articles have been included in, and therefore presumably approved by, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union project.(Rillington (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

With regards to notable – would seem to apply to multiple articles on wikipedia and in the wikiproject! Rugby union in Cyprus and Cyprus national rugby union team for example, hardly notable for rugby union or Cyprus, but it does help to give the bigger picture of how rugby union is developing within Europe. Should we be removing these articles as well, or have one article on nth tier countries in Europe. Jowaninpensans (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing in this article to indicate that the subject is notable enough for a separate article. It should probably only be covered in limited detail in the English rugby union system article. – Pee Jay 15:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't articles like Berks/Bucks & Oxon 1, Berks/Bucks & Oxon 2, Berks/Bucks & Oxon 3 North, Berks/Bucks & Oxon 3 South, Berks/Bucks & Oxon 4 be merged into one article i.e. Berks/Bucks & Oxon (rugby union league)? And indeed, all the Midland competitions in the Rugby union in England template could potentially be merged. In WP:Football, all lower level divisions within the same system are all in the same article (see Southend Borough Combination, Bristol and District Football League, East Riding County League etc.) There isn't an article for each individual division, but there are articles for the leagues themselves. Bristol and District Football League would be 7 different articles otherwise, one for each division. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is potentially the arguement for the Berks/Bucks and Oxon leagues below the BBO Championship (ie those mentioned above) to be merged into one article on the grounds that they all contain non first teams and it's very possible that these leagues actually fall outside of the pyramid in terms of promotion and relegation. Apart from that, I continue to think that all the other leagues should have separate articles due to them being semi-regional or large county-wide leagues, and I'm not just saying that because all of the time and effort I put in to creating all these articles, almost 50 altogether, would be deleted en masse if they were all merged into a single article for anything below the National 3 leagues which is what the administator seems to be proposing, far more than last time when I had around 8 articles deleted.

Regarding the comparison between non league football and lower league rugby made in the post, all of the leagues eight to the bottom of the Midlands and Yorkshire divisions are semi-regional leagues, even at the bottom level of the pyramid and the teams at the bottom of the SE and SW divisions are either semi-regional or county-wide leagues whereas the football leagues at the lower reaches of the non league pyramid are much more localised than county-wide leagues.(Rillington (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is a tertiary source encyclopedia drawn from reliable secondary sources not a directory of primary source material. These leagues can all be covered in one article without any need to list every non-notable club. Those can be found in specialised sources linked to the article for anyone who really wants to know.--Charles (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Why do I get the feeling that these 47 articles are to be deleted in a few days time as nobody appears to recognise the efforts I have put in to create these articles and improve many of the other articles which are being proposed tor deletion as part of this massive cull. Once again, my time and effort is to count for nothing. However, to answer your point, I got the list of teams in each division from a reliable secondary source (clubs.rfu.com) as mentioned in the club infobox which I included with each article. I really did try to ensure that all 47 articles contained enough information and research to ensure that they were satisfactory and if people, not only the administrator proposing the mass removal of all my articles, had had these issues then why not raise them before I spent all these hours creating these 47 articles? It makes me wonder if I am just wasting my time working on wikipedia full stop.(Rillington (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per Janet. --MacRusgail (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Žanamari Lalić. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J'Animals[edit]

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

There are no signs of notability in the article (With regards to WP:BAND) ●Mehran ^Debate● 07:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They only have one album released under the local major label (Croatia Records), and the requirement is two. They're mentioned in the Croatian mainstream but AFAIR still basically only tagging along with Žanamari. ~~Weak delete?~~ --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Žanamari Lalić. She has released just one solo album herself, and the one with J'Animals makes it two, enough for WP:MUSICBIO. GregorB (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with merge too. ●Mehran ^Debate● 11:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:22, 19 September 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) 11:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above.BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not notable enough on its own. Kaldari (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Love Tour[edit]

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

Having considered the relative length of the page I don't think its warranted. If this was an album it would be redirected as it didn't recieve independent coverage from third party sources. After removing the blog-like sources there would be little information left bar a quote that Scherzinger gave in an interview and the dates. The tour's recording and the set-list is not reliable sourced. The information that was reliably sourced could be noted at Killer Love#Killer Love Tour. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 7 September 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:13, 14 September 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) 11:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Levin[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG due to the paucity of reliable third-party sources generally; none of them gives in-depth coverage of the subject himself. Usually, this person appears in reliable sources where something else entirely is being discussed; in other words, he comments about other things which themselves may or may not be notable. Otherwise, he appears in plenty of press by his own company and associated companies, neither of which really indicate any notability. His accomplishments appear to fall far short of WP:ANYBIO. The WP:RESUME-type content has not improved since the the article was twice deleted previously: speedied and later prodded. JFHJr (㊟) 22:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 7 September 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:14, 14 September 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) 11:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Affairs[edit]

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

Not notable journal.I didn't found any WP:RS that discuss it. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 7 September 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources and no claim to notability.--Talain (talk) 21:16, 14 September 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) 11:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No external sources, almost no content.

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umair Hussain[edit]

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

Living person. One of three brothers accused of involvement in a terrorist plot. All three were eventually released either uncharged or after acquittal. No other claim to fame. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BLP1E, no evidence of further notability. -- BenTels (talk) 11:45, 9 September 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:29, 14 September 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) 11:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic case of WP:BLP1E FurrySings (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8 Delete per BLP1E. --No unique names 17:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windowfarms[edit]

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

Notability not established. (Contested speedy) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient reliable sources to pass either WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason found to believe the article's subject is notable. Ducknish (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PWA Australia[edit]

PWA Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Pwa australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Delete. Non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this and Pwa australia (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pwa australia) - added above. Blatant promo-spam. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we need significant coverage in secondary sources - I literally found a single source online. I would be willing to change my mind if anyone finds more and better sources. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ernest Sweet[edit]

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

I am opening this AfD discussion because the nominator, Gravityroom (talk · contribs), ran the process without realising the article had had an earlier AfD. I can't tell if this is the same article / person easily, so it's probably best to run this AfD for its course. I assume it's due to a perceived lack of notability by the nominator. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete -- per first nom discussion. New evidence of notability has been added, but not enough to go over the top. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reason -- I didn't realize there was a prior AfD, but I also don't see anything notable about this bio. -- Gravityroom (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Football League[edit]

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

The talk page shows that the validity of this article has been questioned several times, going back to 2006. The article starts off by stating "A British Football League is a proposed association football league in the United Kingdom that would involve the merger of clubs from the present Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish football league systems into the larger English football league system". However, there have never been any serious/official proposals to merge all the UK's football leagues together. Occasionally there have been vague rumblings that the biggest two Scottish clubs should relocate into the English League, leaving the rest behind, but that's not the same thing at all, and can be covered by a sentence or two in the appropriate article about football in Scotland. As there have never been any serious/advanced proposals to form a single football league for the whole UK, I don't think an article on it is merited. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL and the GNG etc... To be honest, I'd never heard of it until I saw this article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A news search for the article brings up several different hits for "British Football League", none of which seem to have anything to do with this article. Not sure what the best course of action would be, based on that. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those all seem to be foreign (mainly US) sources erroneously referring to the English League as the "British Football League", which is simply a cultural misnomer...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd never heard of this thing, looks to have never been seriously considered. Giant Snowman 10:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No meaningful sources talking about this league. In any case most of the article seems to be about 'alternative proposals', some of which already have articles anyway (e.g. Atlantic League). Eldumpo (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. AutomaticStrikeout 18:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Europe Music Award for Best Indian Act[edit]

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

MTV Europe Music Award for Best Africa, Middle East and India Act already exists. Harsh (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's the same content, then be bold and redirect it. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 08:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no idea whether this category of award even exists. Template:MTV Europe Music Awards shows that MTV Europe Music Award for Best Africa, Middle East and India Act is defunct. And there exists a page for each i.e, Africa Act, Middle East Act, Indian Act separately. Perhaps the main category is cancelled from 2011 and from 2012 all three categories separated.

I thought of merging and redirecting MTV Europe Music Award for Best Indian Act into MTV Europe Music Award for Best Africa, Middle East and India Act, but according to above I am confused. Harsh (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are from India, so I understand that you may be confused. It's so obvious that you are from India. Inida <facepalm> :-( --Spacejam2 (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to withdraw my nomination. Harsh (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Aungiers[edit]

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

This is a ridiculous article, based on virtually nothing -- lack of notability per any standard is patently obvious (particularly after checking for sources -- but even before...). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure as to Wikipedia's policy on deletion of articles, however it is not my intention for this article to simply be removed. I would however expect an objective viewpoint of the topic at hand, rather than a load of utter trifle written in the format of an autobiography/CV/marketing opportunity. Kellja2001 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any sources either, and the ones in the article don't cut the mustard. Lack of Independent, Significant Sources. Kellja, our deletion policy hinges on the general notability guideline, which puts the burden on the sources available on the topic. No strong sources, no article. The Interior (Talk) 03:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is not significant. --Boson (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO spectacularly. JFHJr (㊟) 17:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO, insufficient coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:AUTO, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:RS. True notability is based on much, much more than merely falling out of planes and then coming onto Wikipedia to write promotional articles about oneself in violation of multiple policies. In short: WP:42. Qworty (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — On that note, the editor that created this article and uploaded its images, Shivinski (talk · contribs), is indeed the subject. Aungiers appears to use this handle on several websites. Aungiers has also leveled a legal threat in this discussion (see history) and attempted to remove the AfD notice from the article. Given the unabashed WP:OWN, disruptive editing, and legal threats, I think WP:SALT might be a good prophylaxis against repetition seeing as the subject has never been blocked under either account. JFHJr (㊟) 21:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that a good salting would be in order here. Qworty (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Acme Corporation. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACME_Corp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ACME Corp

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

DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 05:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by means of a redirect to ACME Corporation. If I type "ACME Corp" into a search box, I expect something to do with Road Runner, not this spam. Meep, meep! --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this does seem to be blatant spam. Quite why anyone who knows Wile E. Coyote would wish to call their business ACME Corp remains a mystery. However a search failed to find anything usable that didn't refer to Mr Coyote's outfit instead. A redirect to ACME Corporation would be sensible, I agree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do show however in less quantity, it is to be unconcerned or or not to confuse with the article Acme Corporation, and yes it does fail seemingly in less notability to regard as a reliable advertisement junk sample.--GoShow (............................) 05:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Page has been merged by User:Rhain1999. (non-admin closure) Zappa O Mati 00:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mansion (Slender)[edit]

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

Non-notable mod of another game, lacks sufficient coverage. Slender itself appears to be notable, but this is just a mod that somebody made for it. RPGMakerMan (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did this honestly get AfD? No WP:RS, and does not meet the WP:GNG. Zappa O Mati 12:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's already in Slender: The Eight Pages, so merge. Zappa O Mati 23:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- It probably was better suited to a PROD but I figured since Slender itself is a notable game that PRODing this might be controversial. RPGMakerMan (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like the other. Game maps seldom get independent coverage. Or any coverage in this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. FurrySings (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Page has been merged by User:Rhain1999. (non-admin closure) Zappa O Mati 00:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary (Slender)[edit]

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

Non-notable, lacks sufficient coverage. Can't seem to find any sufficient coverage with various Google searches. While the game Slender itself is notable, this appears to be a non-notable mod. RPGMakerMan (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I said at WP:Articles for deletion/Mansion (Slender), did this seriously get sent to AfD? No WP:RS, and does not meet the WP:GNG at all. Zappa O Mati 12:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's already in the main article, so merge. Zappa O Mati 23:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Game maps are very seldom going to be notable as seldom do they get coverage. Such as this one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Book of the Year Award: Early Childhood[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Children's Book of the Year Award: Early Childhood

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

fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews or trove for this specific prize category. there is coverage for the more generic "Children's Book of the Year Award". LibStar (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of the singular 'Children's Book of the Year Awards' which are given at a single awards ceremony in 5 categories, thus 5 wikipedia articles, one for each category. The problem is we can't merge all the CBCA awards into a single article as it would exceed article length limits, so for practical reasons they are split into separate articles. This is commonly done on Wikipedia. For example one doesn't need to establish that the Academy Award for Best Costume Design is notable on its own merit independent of the Academy Awards because it inherits notability from the parent award (in this example one could establish notability, but it's not needed, the award is primarily notable as being an Academy Award thus the name "Academy Award for..") . If the nom believes the CBCA Awards overall are not notable, List of CBCA Awards would probably be the article to AfD since it covers them as a group. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the Academy Award for Best Costume Design is a poor comparison and hardly makes this award notable, The costume design award is easily notable on its own merit as established here [20] LibStar (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find specific sources for this. can you? I don't believe it deserves a standalone article is significant coverage cannot be found.LibStar (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need to. It inherits the notability of its parent. See WP:INHERIT. The award is named as part of an awards package, it is awarded at the same ceremony as the others in the group, it is spoken of in the press as a group. If you believe it doesn't inherit notability, make a case for it. Just because there is a standalone Wikipedia article doesn't mean it must establish notability. Per WP:INHERIT: "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes." It is impractical to put all the CBCA Awards in one article. Green Cardamom (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

respectively disagree "addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." this subordinate lacks sources to demonstrate individual notability. LibStar (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The five prizes that make up the Children's Book of the Year Award:

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Green Cardamom. This is a spinout article, existing as part of a package. It makes no sense to delete part of the coverage of a notable set of awards. --Arxiloxos (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please provide actual sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment to closing admin none of the keep votes have actually found any sources. LibStar (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lobby the closing admin. The positions are stated above, it is just repeating the same. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list fits well with the other related list articles. The other articles are complicated enough already. Paul foord (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"fits well" is not a criterion for notability. All articles must meet notability. LibStar (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perArxiloxos. I see no benefit to insisting upon the demonstrated notability of this particular award where it is not questioned that the awards as a whole are notable. The nom seems overly concerned with formal compliance wih our guidelines, completely detached from any consideration of how that affects our coverage of these awards as a whole, or for whether that actually serves any fundamental policy consideration here (i.e., no OR or NPOV concerns with his list). Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, such that rules would be ends in and of themselves. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pwa australia[edit]

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

Contested PROD. An Australian Professional wrestling entertainment business that appears to fail WP:CORP. Shirt58 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is also covered at PWA Australia which I will put up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (both) - as per Alan above. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Journal of Modern Biology and Technology[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Article creation premature. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 gnews hit and nothing in gscholar. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too new, and not enough coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blood and Sunlight: A Maryland Vampire Story[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable book from a non-notable author. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
500 Facebook followers for this wiki entry alone. Citations are from nationally recognized sources. Author has major writing creditsvandvthe book is recognized in the vampire community — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.62.251 (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search and found no coverage for this book other than the two sources linked in the article. Two local sources covering an author are not enough to show notability. We'd need far more to show notability for this book and/or the author. As far as popularity goes, popularity alone does not give notability. It just makes it more likely that sources would be found. That said, 500 followers on Facebook really isn't that much when you get down to it and the author has the same issues of notability as the book does. Most of what is out there are as far as sources go for the author and the book are primary sources, merchant sites, junk hits that come up with any search, and non-reliable blog entries. Neither the author nor the book have any notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned and the book being "recognized" in the vampire community does not mean that it's notable. I understand that it's harder for small press books to get the attention that larger and more well-known series in the same genre have gotten, but they're still held to the same standards of WP:NBOOK and WP:AUTHOR, which neither passes. Now as far as the mention of the Bram Stoker Award goes, being on the initial ballot means absolutely nothing. Anyone that's a member of the HWA can nominate a book and membership in the HWA is not that hard to get. The initial ballot is comprised of anything that is recommended by the HWA members and is quite large. Authors can also freely submit their work to be considered. Even if being on the ballot was akin to being nominated for an Oscar, the book didn't win and notable awards only extend notability if they win. This book just isn't notable enough to pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment::I wouldn't consider the Baltimore Sun just a local source. Reviews also appear in Hellnotes, a Stoker Award winning publication. This is a small press book which has received as much exposure as many 'large press' releases. It's a narrow view in the least if we limit ourselves to books released by the 'big 6'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.236 (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the Baltimore Sun is a major paper, it's sort of a local interest story in that the book takes place in Elliott City, which is close to Baltimore. That doesn't mean that the article doesn't count towards notability, just explaining why I stated that it was a local piece. In any case, an article by the Baltimore Sun and an article by the Patch. The problem with the Patch articles in general is that people can submit their own articles to the Patch and get it posted, so for the most part it is sometimes dodgy as a source. This particular source appears to be an opinion blog, but I wasn't entirely going to point that out. As for Hellnotes, I'll run that through the reliable sources noticeboard, but I'll warn you that winning an award doesn't automatically mean that it's reliable. It does make it more likely but not automatically so. Even if it is, three sources are far too light to show that the book absolutely passes WP:NBOOK. I just don't see this passing notability guidelines. The thing that puts smaller press books at a disadvantage is that most times the only coverage they get usually comes from their local papers or from reviews that they have solicited from blogs or sites that may or may not be considered RS. This means that a lot of books don't pass notability guidelines. In all fairness, most of the books by the "Big Six" also don't pass notability guidelines. I'd go so far as to say that at least 80-90% of the mainstream titles out there will never pass notability guidelines, nor do their authors. It's not snobbery, just that the bigger publishers usually have more money, ties, and resources to publicize their books and as such, get more chatter.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTYET. For now, insufficient substantial sources exist to establish notability. My own Google searches turned up nothing promising. I agree that the Baltimore Sun review is more like local coverage. Perhaps in the future, this recently published book may gain enough serious coverage to warrant an article, but now is not the time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly shows shows unreliable clues or information regarding to the article, most of the times a variety of blogs are usually not to be trusted due to their opinionated facts, it does seem more local and hopefully increase the publishing to become notable, otherwise, it is not enough notable, and some of the sources are to more opportunity in opinions to a blog than a document or article.--GoShow (............................) 05:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I would think that intangibles should factor into consideration. The article itself is obviously referenced enough that its deletion would be noticed. The criteria for 'notability' should include, if it does not already, general popularity of which this novel certainly qualifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.224.31 (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You thought wrong. We absolutely need substantial independent coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish notability. Ain't no way around that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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