Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 October	4 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gordon (lawyer)[edit]

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

WP:PROMOTION mostly seems more advertising than BLP notability ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree with the nomination in that what elements could be construed as promotional are written neutrally, or at least require some assumption of bad faith to be read as non-neutral. My concern is that the individual elements don't seem to make this individual notable outside of a very strict reading of the notability rules—most of the sources are poor or don't indicate much lasting notability. Given that I find it highly unlikely that other articles will link to this one, I'm leaning delete. In case it's relevant, I'd also like to mention that I declined the speedy deletion (G11 and/or A7) of this article. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 23:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing every factor, as far as I can see, of my standards for notable attorneys. While he appears to be doing a good job as a lawyer, and he no doubt makes a good living as partner of a larger firm, he is only doing what is required by ABA Model Rule 1.1. Now, if somebody can find evidence that he's actually done something special, rather than being run of the mill, then I would change my mind. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is insufficient to indicate notability, and article is promotional. Coretheapple (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adalbert Brunke[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:N's requirements of nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. All I could find was one 100th birthday announcement and a handful of obituaries, most of which seem to repeat the same information. None of this meets the requirement of making "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". As far as I can tell, the only reason his death got as much notice as it did was because of his connection to Nelson Mandela, and notability is not inherited. Canadian Paul 22:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- He was the first bishop of the Lutheran Church in South Africa, that's not something he "inherited". A Lutheran bishop is for sure notable. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Bishops of major denominations are normally notable. The article is currently a poor stub, but that is a reason to improve it, not delete it. I just wonder whether his pastoral influence on Nelson Mandela may not be a major reason why Mandela emerged from prison to take part in a peaceful transition to majority rule, when he might have emerged as an angry man, wanting to wreek revenge on the White regime. I suspect that is a history that will not be written for a decade or two yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"*Delete doesn't seem to be notable at all.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. Are Lutherans part of the Anglican Communion? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't, but Lutheran bishops in most congregations preside over similar sized groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bishops within standard Lutheran, Catholic and Anglican denominations are notable. I avoid saying "major" denominations, since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with 15 million members qualifies as a major denomination, but with 20,000+ bishops each presiding over congregations rarely with more than 600 members, and sometimes as low as 200, the argument does not work. It does here though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GNG. I found a few more sources.[1][2][3][4][5] -- Trevj (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Parks[edit]

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

The only sources on which to base this person's biography do not conform to WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. As such, the article is not notable enough. Arguably, not good enough for WP:BIO either as the sources are all connected to the subject. jps (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage of Parks ideas are cited to Nexus (magazine) and two French mags devoted to fringe stuff, roughly equivalent to "Secret Conspiracies (or "State Secrets")" and "History's Mysteries", and hardly objective sources. A quick search turns up only two mainstream sources that make very brief passing mentions while listing beliefs related to Zecharia Sitchin. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete somebody with not enough significance. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage suggesting sufficient notability. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A FRINGE topic that lacks reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Noureed Awan[edit]

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

Fails GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 20:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I am inclined towards deleting it on the grounds that the subject fails to find significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources as required by basic criteria for the notability of a person. This is the only good source I find covering the subject significantly. Besides I think we should consider Davidwr's suggestion by running this AfD a little longer so to give the editor (Lollywoodcafe (talk · contribs)) who started this article and is currently blocked a chance to take part in this discussion. -- SMS ^Talk 20:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse extending this AFD until at least 3 days after Lollywoodcafe's block expires to allow him time to participate. Then again, it was my idea to hold off on the AFD until after he was unblocked :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative fully-protect the page and unblock the editor immediately. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - may barely pass WP:Notability but as written - and presumably as would need to be written for a fair article - the subject is portrayed in a bad light. This person is in that grey area between "most people would say not quite notable, a few would say barely notable" and "most would say barely notable, a few would say not quite notable." For such articles, WP:BLP issues can and IMHO should turn the tide towards delete. I'm open to changing my mind if there is new information, particularly from people in that industry or from that part of the world, that would indicate that he is well into "clearly notable" territory. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong suggestion for the closing admin if this gets deleted: To prevent a "whitewash" article or conversely an "attack" article from being written, WP:SALT the page and all variations of his name, e.g. Malik Awan, Malik N Awan, and Malik N. Awan. In the meantime, I've watchlisted those 3 variants. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person in question is a notable chief executive of a company and has been mentioned in several news sources. The person has also been the centre of controversy for different things. I think this passes notability standards and should be kept. Mar4d (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --neither notable nor significantly covered. 39.54.10.247 (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Hilda Khan[reply]
Leaning delete – The subject appears to have had a contentious divorce, but that alone would not be enough for someone who wasn't notable to become notable. There is only one source about his business-related legal troubles - the other reference (currently labeled as [5]) provided for that in the article is about his company and mentions him only once. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, his company being notable wouldn't automatically make him notable, and his company doesn't have an article right now anyway. If more references could be found regarding these business problems that were about him and not just the company, things might be different, but he doesn't look notable, at least not yet. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores Cannon[edit]

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

A WP:VANITY page that seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:FRINGE. I do not believe the subject is notable enough for a devoted article. jps (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of her books are self-published and in my opinion, it is likely that she is either a delusional crank or a con artist. The bottom line is that she's a non-notable crank. Yes, she has occasionally been mentioned briefly in "news of the weird" coverage, but I could find no significant coverage of her in reliable, independent sources. All of the sources but one are controlled by her. I never thought I would see somebody try to use the Weekly World News as a reliable source, but now I have. That rag was the poster child of unreliable sources. As I used to tell my sons in the grocery store checkout line, "if that newspaper ever printed anything true, it was by accident". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood your position. I think calling anyone a "con artist", without a source, might be a violation of WP:BLP in particular libel. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't agree that my "either/or" statement is libelous, I have added qualifying language in italics in response to your concern, and apologize for the harshness of my original comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article from The Edge magazine provides a decent introduction of what she is about. She is somewhere between science, fiction and spirituality. Spiritual belief, and fiction, are not WP:FRINGE topics, but science claims would be considered fringe (not sure if she makes science-based claims?). Her books are self-published but they sell a lot,[6] LibraryThing stat holdings are pretty high in aggregate (and have very high user review ratings). She appears to have a following. In the community of people who believe in spiritual channeling she is considered an expert on the prophecies of Nostradamus.[7] She has a lot of mentions on Google Books. The current article does have problems of undo weight but it's not clear to me yet if this topic is non-notable. We might need some spirituality experts to weigh in. I left a notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spirituality#Article_for_Deletion:_Dolores_Cannon. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere do I see her asserting that her work is fiction, and she makes a wide variety of claims that fall in the domain of science. You brought forth an interview of her in a fringe magazine, which clearly doesn't establish notability. I have no problem with well referenced NPOV articles about truly notable fringe theory advocates. I am unconvinced at this time that she meets that threshold. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religion also makes claims that fall in the domain of science (God created the earth). I guess the question is context. Are her claims made within the context of spirituality, or is she challenging with a new scientific paradigm. My sense is she is primarily a spiritualist. I don't think she publishes pseudo-science papers, rail against "mainstream science", typical of fringe. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Changing to Weak delete based on valid points made by Eppstein and others.-AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)How is The Edge a fringe magazine? I went to the link provided by Green Cardamom. The magazine covers holistic living, was founded in 1992 as a print edition, and added an online edition in 1998. Its circulation is 40,000, according to the magazine site. Also, Cannon started a publishing company, Ozark Mountain Publishing, in 1992 and releases books besides her own, according to the link provided in the Wikipedia article. Does that make her self-published? It does not appear so. I am inclined to agree with Green Cardamom that the topics she writes about are not WP:FRINGE. The page appears to pass WP:GNG. –AuthorAuthor (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Spiritualism" can mean a lot of things. When someone is claiming, as is Cannon, to be able to communicate with the mind-entities of the past through the controversial (to be charitable) practice of past life regression, there is an obvious pseudoscientific claim here. One might argue that as part of a wider movement or religion, the woman might be notable. Indeed, WP:FRINGE covers that eventuality. However, we don't have any evidence that Cannon is actually notable beyond her acolytes. If she was a religious figure, we would hope to find independent sources from the religion to establish her notability. The Edge, in this case, is just a promotional magazine for like-minded New Age religionists. If you can find an independent source who is not trying to promote Cannon's claims, then I'd be more sympathetic to this argument. But, as it is, The Edge does not seem to me to be sufficiently independent to establish her notability. jps (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She appeared in a full-length documentary, Fastwalkers,[8] in 2007, directed by Anthony T. Miles. She does not appear to have had anything to do with production. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This documentary is just a UFO conspiracy theory jaunt. It isn't properly independent in the sense that it is just promoting and parroting Cannon's claims essentially on her behalf. jps (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at the list of cast members, you will see that a dozen people were interviewed for the documentary. It does not appear to be "essentially on her behalf." According to info via the film links, she is one of several in the film. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I watched the segments of the film that had her in it. As I suspected, it's basically an advertisement for her beliefs. No analysis, contextualization, or anything more than primary source documentation. The film is just a platform for her and a dozen other UFO conspiracy theory types. Not only is it not an independent source, the documentary can't be a reliable source for anything but the opinions of the interviewees and evidence, perhaps, that such ideas exist and are connected by the filmmaker, though I note the film itself doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia, for example. In short, if Cannon were notable, this film would be a good primary source document to use to show what she says, but the film itself does not speak to her notability at all as far as WP:FRINGE goes. jps (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Someone who claims to have spoken to Nostradamus via hypnotism-induced time-travel [9] and who has predicted space-alien contacts [10] definitely falls under WP:FRINGE, and needs non-credulous sources to balance the woo per WP:NPOV. I searched both Google news archive and Google books for such sources and didn't find them. So I don't see how we can possibly have an adequately neutral article about the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent quality coverage: not notable enough. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 21:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dance Remixes[edit]

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

Lacks significant enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant a separate article per WP:NALBUMS. It is just a remix compilation album with no lasting significance. STATic message me! 16:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. The policy is pretty clear that notability on an album is not inherited from an artist who is, and there doesn't seem to be any real indication of notability of this specific album. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 17:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Britten[edit]

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

Prod removed, I'm not convinced the Cross of Valour is enough to confer notability, never mind the overall lack of sources to support a biography. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm very confused by your nomination statement. Could I bother you to provide some clarifications for me please? (Thanks in advance.)

Prod removed - a) Where was there a prod? b) Is the {{Article for deletion/dated}} not the same as a prod? (Answer: {{proposed deletion/dated}} is different to {{Article for deletion/dated}}.)

I'm not convinced the Cross of Valour is enough to confer notability - Why are you not convinced? It's the civilian equivalent of the Victoria Cross, and the Australian replacement of the George Cross. Receipt of both the VC and the GC is (more than) enough to confer notability. Why are you not convinced?

never mind the overall lack of sources to support a biography - maybe the article has changed since you nominated it, but currently there are more than enough sources.

As I said, I'm very confused by your nomination statement. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Under WP:ANYBIO, which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor...", this person meets notability. The Cross of Valour (Australia) is highest peacetime bravery award of Australia, ranking ahead of all others but the Victoria Cross for Australia, which is only awarded for actions in combat. This award is rare, only having been awarded 5 times, and is significant due to its stature as a national honour. Recent consensus from other editors at this category deletion discussion roughly states that the Cross of Valour is a significant and a defining award, if you do not agree with my rationale: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_11#Category:Recipients_of_the_Bravery_Medal_.28Australia.29. EricSerge (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fully complies with WP:BIO guideline and corresponding policy. The award is not some obscure award from the local knitting society but a country's highest civilian for bravery. As for the "overall lack of sources", the article has sufficient number of independent reliable sources. --Technopat (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the explanation of the significance of the award provided by EricSerge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously. Recipients of the highest non-combat award for gallantry are as notable as recipients of the highest combat award for gallantry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As stated by others, a clear keep under WP:ANYBIO. And I note that his heroism received a second wave of coverage in 2012 when he was honored a second time in connection with the Jubilee. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear case under WP:ANYBIO Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Laurel and Hardy#Style of comedy and characterizations. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel and Hardy: Style of comedy and characterizations[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR. It's as if someone has written an essay for school. Any salvageable material can be incorporated at the main article at Laurel and Hardy#Style of comedy and characterizations, if not already. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Looks like a term paper for a filmography class. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laurel and Hardy#Style of comedy and characterizations, rather as the nominator suggests. This article was split off from the main one in November 2009 and the topic has since been developed in both places. Since this article has scarcely a reference but contains nothing objectionable in its contents, I suggest redirecting back to the original but leaving the text in the history behind the redirect. Then any enthusiast can rejig things, hopefully with references. However, the present material is too much like an essay to attempt a formal merge.Thincat (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Thincat. Separate article not warranted as per nom. Gong show 19:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 21:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milana Špremo[edit]

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

This player does not meet notability guidelines for nsport or Tennis Project. No ITF wins in $35,000+ events, no main draws on the WTA tour, no Fed Cup, no jr slam victories. So far, one of thousands of low ranked players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There 90 Google News Archive results, but none in English. Ich weiß dass nicht (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2013 (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) 15:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a non-notable tennis player. No WP:GNG claims either. Jared Preston (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet both WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. No significant independent coverage shown.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Wolbo (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Dyrus Hill[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this article gets kept it should be moved to Marcus "Dyrus" Hill (with double quotation marks around his nickname, instead of two single quotation marks on either side). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is covered in many sources by GameSpot, which is a reliable source. They just haven't been incorporated in the article yet. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I would like to note that the sources from GameSpot would generally ask things like "how do you feel about this next game/the past game" or personal questions, both of which aren't really fit for the article. I think that the general idea that sources exist, and a notable source covers him is enough to establish notability. As for sourcing the content in the article by using third party sources instead of first party, I was talking to the article creator about finding sources from third parties. I am sure they exist, we just have to go get them. In my opinion, it would be an insult to eSports if this article was deleted. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show some examples of the coverage? Other than the one player profile in the article already I could hardly find anything. Of course I agree that if sources exist they don't need to yet be in the article to establish notability, I just couldn't find any evidence of their existence. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

gamesradar(will incorporate this in the article.)gamespot interview videos. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The gamesradar article only appears to mention him once and in passing, or am I missing something? Samwalton9 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's often talked about on Gamespot, he (and his team) are covered by Redbull.com, (which serves more as a variety online magazine than anything nowadays), and he's also referenced in articles on Polygon (gaming news) -- notable enough, honestly. --nothingxs 23:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothingxs (talk • contribs) [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) 15:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RS identified in the above discussion. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (without prejudice to any merging that may be required/desired). Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each of these articles is about a core set for the game Magic: The Gathering. I have examined all the nominated articles, and no case do I find any evidence of notability per WP:GNG. This collection of material might be a valuable part of a fan-site, but I see no evidence that it belongs in an encyclopedia.

Most of the articles are written entirely from an in-universe perspective. Some of these articles are referenced only to the manufacturer's website; other have no footnotes at all. The only other references I have found in any of these articles are to fan sites, or to commercial websites which sell gaming products. No sources are offered for any of them which would be relevant to WP:GNG.

After deletion, it will probably be best to redirect the titles to the head article Magic: The Gathering. Some of titles are implausible search terms, but the redirects will preserve any external links.

List of Vocaloid products[edit]

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

There is no encyclopedic reason to keep this list of products. Most of the entries aren't properly verified anyway, and whatever is actually relevant and properly vetted could find its way into the main article, Vocaloid, which at 116,000 bytes is so ridiculously bloated that a few bytes more or less won't matter. The article looks like a combination of fancruft and directory info, and there is no encyclopedic reason to keep it. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may need some work, but that's not a reason to delete the list. Vocaloid is, first and foremost, a singing synthesizing program, and there are many different iterations of the technology. Rather than bloat the main article, having a separate list makes sense, and besides, having a list of software is not prohibited, so I don't see why Vocaloid cannot have its own software list when there are so many different versions across a multitude of languages. I would also like to note that WP:MUST and WP:UNRELIABLE are not proper arguments. I also do not see how this article has anything to do with WP:DIRECTORY or WP:FANCRUFT. All of these are real-world products with real-world impact, the exact opposite of what fancruft is.--十八 05:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I might could accept this if there were reliable sources on this supposed real-world impact, besides Twitters and online communities. 140,000 bytes combined is a pretty good indication of cruftiness. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not all the sources on the main article nor this article are unreliable, even if many of them are. There are also the promotional events, including several live concerts, the latest of which had over 10,000 fans. And even if the main article was trimmed, this product list is already long, and will continue to grow even longer over time. And I suppose just going by length, then George Washington would be absolutely filled with cruft, hmm?--十八 20:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - His article has references that are, like, from books, you know. Plus, he was important. There's books about him. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I come back to this article very often and I find it very useful. Even the official Vocaloid website doesn't have a list like this (it excludes a lot of products). I wouldn't mind it to be merged into the main Vocaloid article, as long as it doesn't disappear. Benimation (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2013 (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) 18:38, 26 September 2013 (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) 15:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The fact that this may be a useful list is no reason to keep it. You don't see articles like this for other operating systems because it makes no sense for it. Should have been a speedy as there's nothing notable about a list like this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Haque[edit]

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

Requested deletion via OTRS. Article contained false defamatory statements (now removed) however the notability here is minimal. Most of the coverage that does exist is about the subject's restaurant, which does not have an article so no suitable redirect target exists. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the wiki-notability is minimal if any per WP:BIO. Most of the sources are about the restaurant and some of those are self-published blogs. There might be enough for an article about the restaurant rather than about him. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Among the culinary elite. The LA Times said Haque(THE POWER ISSUE; The West 100; Our list of the most.. Los Angeles Times - Aug 13, 2006) owned "the hottest restaurant in LA". The restaurants are covered in this article as well and as noted above they are quite notable. The combined article passes the notability threshold without much difficulty. There is plent yof substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2013 (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) 18:40, 26 September 2013 (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) 15:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When a person requests deletion of a biography of them through OTRS, the article had had flagrant BLP policy violations, and the notability is dubious, I will consistently favor deletion. The sources are primarily about the restaurant. The LA Times paragraph, for example, has no biographical information, but instead emphasizes the trendiness, at that time, of the restaurant. If a policy-compliant article about the restaurant is written, I would not oppose a redirect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we have been all over the map on requests to delete BLPs of otherwise marginally notable adults (cf. similarly-situated children, who we usually delete). Can we have some more input on this one? I am leaning towards delete, based on the fact that his restaurant is really notable, while the chef is not always in the limelight. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the subject hadn't requested deletion, this article simply doesn't meet WP:GNG. Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stunticons. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown (Transformers)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stunticons. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2013 (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) 18:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has notable citations, and covers several major anime characters. Mathewignash (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2013 (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) 15:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stunticons. No significant coverage in reliable, secondary independent sources, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Stunticons, we do not delete all of the Transformers articles because there notable. JJ98 (Talk) 01:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Vargas (Angry Joe)[edit]

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

This page came to my attention because it was attracting vandalism. Trying to improve it after reverting the vandalism, I was unable to find independent sources, and some of the material in the article - the Superman thing - is not supported by the existing sources. I don't believe this person meets our notability guideline. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2013 (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) 15:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be the necessary reliable sources to establish sufficient notability to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Peacock (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no secondary sources, just some appearances in someone else's video blog. Can't find any press coverage of his work. --McGeddon (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Airwolf. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stringfellow Hawke[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Sources mention this character as part of overall coverage of the series in which he appears but do not discuss him in any detail. PROD removed based on the notability of the source series but the notability of the series does not confer notability onto its individual characters. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Airwolf; there is a cast section, but no character section there. Character is not independently notable but a brief character bio would be appropriate.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News Archive shows coverage in sources in many languages, over multiple decades, for the character, many of which appear to transcend the actor who played him. Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google news archive shows many mentions of the character, often in the form of "what's on tonight" TV listings, which establish the character's existence but not its notability. The idea that the fictional character somehow "transcends" the actor who played the part is ludicrous on its face. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2013 (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) 15:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Airwolf. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 21:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Charles Henry Moffet[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character who appears in a single episode (plus filmed inserts in a second) of a TV series. Some sources mention the character in passing but the substantive secondary sources needed to establish notability do not exist. Tagged for improvement for close to six years; improvement isn't going to happen. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Airwolf; there is a cast section, but no character section there. Character is not independently notable but a brief character bio would be appropriate.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This character, having but one appearance in the series, is not mentioned in the cast section and shouldn't be. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2013 (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) 14:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'Type-what-I-see recap' of a guest character who appeared in one episode and didn't do much but create the show's signature vehicle. One line is enough in the show's plot summary; no redirect. Nate • (chatter) 17:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 21:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Kourtis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN. Article makes an incredible claim that the subject had a number 1 single in 19 countries, yet no evidence exists. Ish dar ian 14:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Ish dar ian 14:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this subject; does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:ENT, or WP:MUSIC. Gong show 19:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 21:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Shiels[edit]

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

Disputed PRODs with reason given "likely controversial, discussion called for". All ten of my nominations in this AfD are for the same reason - They fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Have not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG (nobody has received "significant coverage", only run-of-the mill and routine basic sports journalism) and WP:NFOOTBALL (nobody has played in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 14:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - per nom, not contraversial clear NFOOTY / GNG failures for the reasons explained above. Fenix down (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 21:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Covey[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG or BIO. Prod removed by IP. Discussion on talk, but no substantial changes or additions for over a week (conservatively; I'd really say almost two, and not since the day after creation). This is another one of those articles where no one hears about the person until after they've died, and there is simply no coverage prior to obituaries. Almost all of the sources are obituaries, and the only one that isn't is a quote from Fortune whereby it is stated that the subject was on a list of powerful women execs (because the source is actually a quote about the subject's mother). Per GNG, there is no substantial coverage, and per BIO, the depth of sources is poor (it took six obits to write four sentences). Those sources are reliable and independent, but the lack of depth hampers the "presumption of notability". The gist of the argument on talk is that Covey is "notable" for being a CFO and through that position, raising money for Amazon's IPO. As we know, notability is not inherited, meaning the subject is not notable due to working for Amazon, or for anything related to the day-to-day performance of her job (which is what the fundraising was about; that is part of what CFOs in all companies in similar situations do as a rule). The following may be an OTHERSTUFF argument, but it seems that while CEOs (like Jack Welch, Warren Buffett, Carly Fiorina, Richard Branson, and Jeff Bezos) can often meet GNG due to coverage of their management and generally high profile in other areas, their CFOs generally do not. MSJapan (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obituaries are sufficient to indicate notability, and constitute the kind of coverage that is required by the notability guideline. Status as first female CFO adds to notability. Coretheapple (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - GNG requires "significant coverage", and it has been established that there is no substantial coverage of her during her life. If her appointment was such a major item, there should have been coverage on it, and there is not. There is also no assertion made in either the sources or the article that she was the first female CFO ever. Many companies have appointed "first female CFOs" in their recent histories, including Microsoft, Xerox, Nomura, and so on, so simply being the first at a certain company should not, in and of itself, create notability. MSJapan (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that the significant coverage used to establish notability should be published during a subject's life. I agree that the "first female CFO" argument is a red herring. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The obits all came out at the same time, and have more or less the same information, because they generally originate from the same copy. They're not independently written by every paper, so I have a problem considering them separate sources. The other articles also all tend to say the same things about her as well. So I am not convinced that there is depth of coverage so much as rehashing of the same information. My point about source timing is that nobody thought this person was notable enough during her life (despite the notability claims to the contrary here) to do an in-depth story on her. Wikipedia users have a bad habit of generating articles from obituaries that never go anywhere precisely because nobody had heard of the person until their obit got on multiple Internet news sites, meaning there's nothing else to say other than what the obits have. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where on Earth do you get the idea that The New York Times doesn't publish independently written obituaries? Its obituary was written by David Streitfeld, a staff reporter. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The very first result found by the Google Books search linked by the nomination procedure is a substantial entry in a paper encyclopedia from a major academic publisher, establishing notability. This is clearly a totally unresearched nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, I simply didn't look at Google Books. I almost never do, because the vast majority of their material has never been helpful, because it's always fringe material or old PD books with outdated info. The fact that there's a book from 2004 available that isn't self-published is quite literally shocking. Therefore, I find your comments to be rather close to a PA, frankly, rather than a "behavior comment." I clearly demonstrated that I had looked at sources in my nom, and just because I missed one area does not mean you can discount the entire nom as "unresearched." Also, it's not "substantial" - every woman in that book has an entry almost the same length as Covey's, and the entry just before hers on "corporate culture" is quite literally just as long. So, I feel there's some hyperbole in both of your statements. I would also state that one source alone does not meet GNG. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You discount books in general for being fringe or outdated? You really should rethink your searching strategy, as the best sources for just about any article are books from reliable publishers. Pointing that out is good advice, not a personal attack. The fact that the other articles in that encyclopedia are also substantial doesn't mean that the article about Covey is not substantial, as it covers her directly and in detail as required by our notability guidelines, and that is only the first of many sources found by a Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watching Trees Grow[edit]

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

I am a big fan of Hamiltion, but unlike his books, which are likely all notable, his short stories do not seem to be. Not unless they won an award or otherwise generated coverage, and this one does not seem to provide any indication of this, clearly failing WP:N. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's all plot. This kind of fan effort would be better at a Wikia project. I've notified a Wikia project, though it looks pretty slow over there. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 14:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 20:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Meals[edit]

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

Minor actress that fails WP:NACTORS. She had a small role in 2 Rocky movies as Apollo Creed's wife that doesn't really get her past notability, a single appearence on a Cosby show episode and a minor supporting role in a film that nobody saw. Hasn't been in anything else since 2007, so I'm not thinking she's going to get notable anytime soon. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2013 (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) 02:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 14:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Although not a reliable, IMDB doesn't list much in the way of acting credits. this would explain the lack of coverage. All I could find were credit listings for Rocky in movie guides. -- Whpq (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People who just had a minor role in a series of films don't come close to passing the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 20:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhiruchi Singh Verma[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:AUTHOR. The book has not received multiple reviews in reliable sources, per AUTHOR #4. The book is published by Lambert Academic Publishing which is possible self-published or unreliable publisher . Green Cardamom (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to be found. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 14:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Xxanthippe put it well. This is not an influential academic, or author.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without prejudice to any merger discussions. Consensus is that there has been enough third-party coverage of all or most of these items to make them notable. Sandstein 11:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each of these articles is about a expansion set for the game Magic: The Gathering. I have examined all the nominated articles, and no case do I find any evidence of notability per WP:GNG. This collection of material might be a valuable part of a fan-site, but I see no evidence that it belongs in an encyclopedia.

Some of these articles, such as Invasion are referenced only to the manufacturer's website; other such as Kamigawa have no footnotes at all. The only other references I have found in any of these articles are to fan sites, or to commercial websites which sell gaming products.

Most of the articles are written entirely from an in-universe perspective. Even the few articles which show some awareness of a need for real-world relevance fail to provide real-world evidence of their significance. For example, Time Spiral#Critical_reception is referenced only to an article by the game's own designer, who is hardly an independent source.

After deletion, it will probably be best to redirect the titles to the head article Magic: The Gathering. Some of titles are implausible search terms, but the redirects will preserve any external links.

Disclosure: I encountered this material at the CFD discussion on Category:Magic: The Gathering expansion sets. I examined two of the articles, and nominated them for AFD (see AFD:Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering) and AFD:Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering)). At the latter AFD, another editor suggested that the other expansion set articles were equally poor, so I investigated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note tagging. I have just finished tagging these articles for AFD. In each case I have also added {{notability}} and {{in-universe}} tags to the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Magic: The Gathering has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, broadly, including the two sets nominated separately, and cleanup. That these articles are poorly written and fail to cite available sources is not a valid deletion rationale. And there are certainly sources available. Undoubtedly every Magic expansion set / expansion block receives coverage in gaming industry magazines -- anything pre-2007 is abundantly covered in InQuest, and anything pre-2009 in Scrye, for example. There are droves of books about the game, many of which provide nontrivial coverage of whatever expansions are present at the time. Quite a few sets (Ravinca, to pull one out of a hat) have won prestigious industry awards (in that case, an Origins Award in 2005). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add Lotus Noir to the list of established publications that are trivially capable of sourcing these articles; unlike the other two, it is still in publication and so can source post-2009 releases as well. Now, admittedly, I don't think any of these magazines are readily available online (if Lotus Noir indexes its very old back issues, my French was too rusty to find them quickly). WP:MUSTBESOURCES, sure (and if I absolutely must, I will find specific citations, but this massive omnibus nomination makes that burdensome), but when there have been multiple independently-published periodicals (note that I didn't even include The Duelist / Sideboard because that's the publisher's house magazine) whose primary focus was on this topic, that's as much a case of WP:BEFORE. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, at times even specific expansions have been the sole subject of full books: Alliances (Magic: The Gathering) currently redirects to the block article at Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering) (and I'm neutral whether that structure is the correct one), but see: Baxter, George H. (1996). Alliances Revealed: A Review of the Alliances Edition of Magic : The Gathering. Wordware. ISBN 978-1556225215.. Now, not every set has a full-length independently-published book treatment (probably, anyway), but more than one does, and significant but less exclusive coverage is commonplace. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wordware had quite a series of these going for a little while. There are, at a minimum, books entirely dedicated to Alliances, Mirage, Visions, Weatherlight, and Portal. Probably others. And, of course, books and books and books dedicated to the game itself with substantial, if not exclusive, discussion of given sets or blocks. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of these articles have been consolidated recently and some more might occur, but each is highly notable. Lots of literature on each expansion, to speak nothing of the blocks which is how the pages appear now. There are two collectible card game price guides that also document each of the blocks mentioned above; these are in addition to the two industry mags that Squeamish mentioned. The Duelist is another magazine that has documented these. Also, it should not be assumed these pages are going to be deleted, this would suggest personal bias. Additionally, you described these articles inaccurately, especially with your comment that each of these is "about a expansion set for the game." No, each of these is about a block which typically includes three expansions of the game. Are you sure you read these thoroughly? Leitmotiv (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. No, of course I didn't waste hours reading every line of this fancruft. I assessed them for evidence of notability, and whether they are a "block" or an "expansion set" is irrelevant to notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  - Reply Well you may want to accurately assess your nominations for deletion the next time you decide to omnibus an entire string of articles. It might make you look more credible. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply. No, I leave that sort of nuance to those who write the articles. It is irrelevant to an AFD discussion whether the topic covers one expansion set or three, and your pedantic insistence on the point accurately mirrors the in-universe focus of the articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply I only raise the issue to point out that you aren't accurately describing the reasons for your nomination. During my recent edits from minutes ago, I see you glaringly overlooked qualified secondary sources on some of your nominations. Try better next time. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Example please, rather than assertion. Which article, which source?
        95% of the refs are to the publisher's own site, as is typical of fancruft. I set out to look at every single ref which was to another source, and found nothing which was both independent and reliable. All the other refs I saw were either fansites or sellers. What did I miss? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Well honestly, I don't feel like resifting through all the work I did because of your sloppiness. BUT, here is one I recall Time Spiral with a reference from InQuest. Looks like there are others elsewhere from TCGPlayer, MTGSalvation (dead link) but you've already stated that retailers are below you; nevermind the notable hundreds of millions of dollars they make. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply No, Leitmotiv, the issue is not my feeling about retailers. The problem is that the relevant policy (WP:N) assesses notability by looking at coverage in sources independent of the article's subject. The fact that the sellers make lots of money doesn't make them independent sources; it gives them a conflict of interest.
        Indeed, in Time Spiral I did miss a reference from InQuest: an interview with the game's designer. That's not a great example of a secondary source. Anything which doesn't consist simply of quotes from the creator? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I know that InQuest, Scrye, and Lotus Noir are not available online. But really, those all are/were major, independent, well-regarded periodicals serving this specific industry, and often focused on these specific topics. There have been an abundance of articles, on just about every facet of every one of these releases, from development, to distribution, to reviews, to retrospectives. And there are other print sources, too, like the Wordware series of guides that, for awhile, was a book per set. And then, of course, we have two sets (Urza's Saga, Ravnica) that are Origins Award winners (1998, 2005, respectively). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC) +More than that, actually; many individual expansions are winners of prestigious industry awards. Additional Origins Awards for Legends (1994) and Innistrad (2011); I may have missed some. Games magazine Games 100 best CCG award in the December 1997 issue for Portal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reply Your description of "independent" inaccurately matches the secondary market per WP:N's description of independent sources. They are not "affiliated," so TCGPlayer would suffice. Conflict of interest? Are you saying a used car sales lot is a lapdog for all of the car manufacturers? Or could it be he could care less? If this was strictly like a Toyota dealership then I could get behind your reasoning, but it's not. Though I could if the retailer in question sold only one kind of product and had obvious loyalties. I'm sure there are plenty of retailer citations all over Wikipedia. I don't see how TCGPlayer or the others should be excluded. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply. Do you understand what a conflict of interest is? A retailer's primary interest is selling games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        More sloppiness spotted on Ravnica which has an Origins award reference. Yah, OP didn't do her homework. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Leitmotiv, your repeated incivility is moving beyond rudeness into something close to harassment. Please stop it.
        Firstly, I have repeatedly explained that did my homework. Please assume good faith, and stop accusing me of being dishonest about that. I am human, and make no claim to perfection, so in checking a few hundred references, a non-zero error rate is merely evidence that I am not a computer. Describing it as "sloppiness" is aggressively rude, and adds nothing to the debate.
        Secondly, I did check that ref to OgreCave.com's page on the Origins Awards. There are several reasons that I don't count it as evidence of notability:

Ogrecave.com does not appear to have any of the characteristics of a WP:Reliable source, and may fit the definition of WP:USERGENERATED
The page in question is about the Awards, not about Ravnica (which is merely one of a few dozen games listed). Even if OgreCave was a reliable source, WP:N explicitly says "significant coverage is more than a passing mention", and that page gives Ravnica only a passing mention.
Winning an award is not evidence of notability. It may be an indication that the topic in question is likely to have received significant coverage elsewhere, but it is not evidence of that coverage. Many awards are issued in many fields, but their significance varies widely. Some of them (such as the Oscars or the Booker Prize) are so high-profile that their winners gain significant attention well beyond the usual sphere of interest in that field. Wikipedia's article on the Origins Award is in very poor shape, and gives no indication (let alone evidence) that this a highly significant award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped reading your entire reply after you accused me of being aggressively rude. No, that started with you and your "pedantic" comments. Hypocrite. Again, try better next time. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha (Magic: The Gathering) (group nom of 16 articles). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have found two previous AFDs of MTG materials: 1 and 2. In the latter discussion, User:JohnCD noted that "the content of these articles is all in-universe cruft repeating primary sources, material for Wikia's Magic: The Gathering Wiki but not for Wikipedia".
These articles are in exactly the same state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those two previous AFDs are very different. Duel Decks are small reprint lines without any new cards and limited sales and coverage rather than the full-fledged sets (an analogy would be the difference between the greater notability of an original music albums of notable artists vs. the lesser notability of a "greatest hits" compilation). The other AFD you point out gives information on fictional characters within the backstory, but the articles currently nominated are not fictional, but are real-world products with extensive secondary coverage. —Lowellian (reply) 18:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the nominator of 1 and 2, and I don't think that this particular AfD is the best comparison. There are certain things that could be written about the Invasion block that can't be written about Jace vs. Chandra. Storyline and reception, for example. Plus there's Lowellian's comment about reprints versus new cards; as such, the core sets AfD is probably more applicable than this one. Note also that the Duel Decks were merged into a single article (written by me), much as each block has been merged into a single article (by me), and the six "early expansions" may be as well (probably also by me) p b p 20:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All SqueamishOrange hits it on the nose here - InQuest Gamer and Scrye extensively covered each and every set of Magic, including retrospectives for the early publications, and they were the two premier publications in the card-gaming industry in the 1990s; coverage has only increased since then as the game has become even more popular. Plenty of secondary source material here, even if that is not evident in the current revisions for some of these articles. Chubbles (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, man, when did I turn into an orange? :P Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Caught that too. My mouth giggled. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The recent RfC at Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering) is probably relevant to this discussion p b p 17:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the blocks, merge Homelands, Dark, Legends and Fallen Empires to Magic: The Gathering early expansions: This probably can be sourced, but we don't need stand-alone articles for each set. Voting to preserve RfC consensus, but consolidate all the early expansions into a single article p b p 17:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small RFC notwithstanding, there really is a lot of material available for most, if not all, of these individual sets. I feel fairly COI-free here, as I haven't touched this hobby in over a decade, but I'm willing to do some of the heavy lifting to get properly sourced material. Especially with the early stuff, it's likely to be slow, just because the content isn't available online, and I don't have stacks of Scrye, InQuest, Lotus Noir, and Game Trade Magazine sitting around. But that's not a barrier to article creation or retention. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the recent consolidation efforts by PBP, I recommend consistency in the layout of blocks. Though the earliest expansions didn't utilize this format, they too can be easily switched over to one or two separate pseudo block pages consisting of 1. Arabian Nights, Antiquities, and Legends and 2. The Dark, Fallen Empires, and Homelands. No. 1 has relatively similar distribution numbers among the expansions, as well as no. 2. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly comfortable doing that with the early sets, because the sources don't; it's entirely a false arrangement for the sake of article-structure convenience, and we shouldn't be doing that. But, again, all this is an editorial discussion that doesn't need to happen in the context of an AFD. Really, I think we follow the sources here. Early sets, even into the first couple of mostly-retroactively-declared blocks are going to be treated individually in terms of sourced discussion of development, distribution, and reaction. The modern game, as I understand it, has pretty firmly embraced the block concept and discussed things in that context. Exactly what we do with stuff on the borderline, especially the Ice Ages / Alliances / Homelands / Coldsnap weirdness is a matter for ... another time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to consolidate the non-block expansions into a single article rather than imposing a pseudo-block structure on them. It's worth noting that the first three expansions didn't have large print runs, while the last non-block expansions are generally considered some of the weakest sets in MtG history. p b p 18:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been persuaded. My pseudo block idea is probably a bad approach even though it would fit snug. I would then lean towards a consolidation to PBP's suggestion of Arabian Nights to Homelands being on one page. But I do see that each of these earliest of expansions could deserve their own page because that history is so rich with documentation. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I know this is the wrong place for such a suggestion, but while we are talking about consolidations... Lorwyn/Morningtide should be merged with Shadowmoor/Eventide. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation - Squeamish Ossifrage hit this on the head with WP:BEFORE. I know Wikipedia doesn't like comparisons in situations like this, but heck, if Jigglypuff can have his own devoted Wiki article, I do believe there is hope for articles on blocks of Magic expansions. The articles do exist out there, they just haven't been added as citations yet. The emphasis of all this discussion should be on improving articles that we know are notable, but just need some TLC instead of blanket deletions. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All, at least the blocks. Normally I have a lot of respect for BrownHairedGirl's reasoning, but this is one of the rare cases where I think she's gotten it wrong. All of these sets would have received coverage in InQuest Gamer, a third party source not affiliated with WOTC. I could see if my parents have not thrown out my old magazines from my teenage years, but in the meantime I know the sources are out there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Contrary to the nominator's claims, this is not "fancruft" because, rather than articles about fictional characters or fictional objects, these articles are about real-world products with massive sales (on the level of millions of units) and extensive secondary coverage in hundreds of articles in independent (from the manufacturer) magazines and websites, and are thus notable on the same basis as car models, for which Wikipedia has thousands of pages (go down the category tree starting from Category:Automobiles by country). —Lowellian (reply) 18:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both Forbes and MTV seem to have sections of their websites that regularly cover Magic: The Gathering sets ([13] [14]). As noted above, InQuest Gamer and Scrye provided significant coverage of Magic sets while those magazines were in print. Calathan (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Factual information about the release date of the set, how many cards and at what rarities seems relevant. While this information can be available at other websites related to selling the product, Wikipedia is considered a source for generic and historical factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32D7:DA60:5AB0:35FF:FE7F:1C79 (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not certain all of these have seen significant coverage in reliable sources, but certainly most have. I personally would lean toward some type of merger of many of these into groups (much like we might merge episodes of a season of a TV show) but unlike most TV shows, most (if not all) of these have significant third party coverage. It might be better organizationally to merge them though. That said, that's not a topic for AfD. Hobit (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Cross-posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering)) Though it pains my little fanboy heart, these standalone articles are not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. The articles are almost exclusively sourced from the Wizards of the Coast homepage and the blogs/Tumblrs/etcetera of the designers and staff that worked on the product, which means they are not third-party sources and therefore cannot be used as reliable sources. To respond to the comments saying we should keep these because Wikipedia is a good source of this information, I'd like to point you to the MTG Salvation Wiki as well as this list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and rationales why they are not useful. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF.

A portion of the content could be merged into the main article. --jonny-m t 01:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review your vote. Since nomination, all the articles now have on average 2 "third-party sources" as references, some as many as 5. Plenty more can be added. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback; I'll take a closer look, but from what I've seen so far the third-party sources seem to mostly be repeating release dates, etc. Incidentally, at the risk of being a stickler for language please note that this is not a vote but a discussion.

(FYI, it looks like you ran into a conflict edit and accidentally removed my not about crossposting. I'll go ahead and put it back.) --jonny-m t 06:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The MTGset infobox template details is worth keeping, even if its all on one page (like a TV show season table). I'm DarkArcherPrince but it locked me out because I was too stupid to realize that the https and the http link are BOTH stored in Firefox but they're not the same :-( (feel free to run a checkuser) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.51.35 (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as Lowellian said. I also agree with Leitmotiv: "the articles do exist out there, they just haven't been added as citations yet". Also I report that italian magazine "Oracolo", edited by Nexus Editrice, was an indipendent reliable source for over 14 years. Magic expansions received a wide coverage around the world, these articles definitely belongs to Wikipedia, if they are poorly made just improve them. I also suggest to keep each set as a separate article, I think each one deserve a certain level of detail. --Phyrexian ɸ 20:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 20:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Kogan[edit]

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

This is a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK, purporting to be about Kogan when it is about a campaign for a product. Fiddle Faddle 12:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- each source bar one (IMDB) appears to be focused on this person's campaign for Ibogaine. Only a few sentences in this article are not about this topic. Agree with nominator about coatrack, and would add that this article may fall into the guideline for people notable for only one event. As it stands, I would want to see more sources about other aspects of this individual's life, and I am not sure if that is possible... Lesion (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A person could be notable as a leading advocate for a drug therapy. So long as the sources support it. Treatment Magazine says Kogan is "arguably the leading proponent of Ibogaine treatment".[15] The problem is the sources are sketchy, they may be press releases hiding as news stories; it's difficult to tell how reliable the sources are. Since this is a medical topic it would be good to have mainstream academic sources to ensure it's not snakeoil or fringe science. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally think from reading the references that while there is focus on his campaign's for Ibogaine, this makes him notable. I wouldn't really say he's only notable for one event, he seems to have worked with Ibogaine for a number of years and setup clinics to treat using the drug. I do agree that further info from academic sources would help. 193.109.199.71 (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)(Note: This user is not exactly a Special Purpose Account, but their very first Wikipedia edit was this comment; they then commented at a few other unrelated AfD discussions.)[reply]

Keep - Article was stripped to a stub. Information about his campaigns and promotional wording removed. Only information about him and his activism should be in the article, not everything that can be found about ibogaine. Ibogaine has its own article. He is an activist and has reliable sources to show that, but Wikipedia is not a place to push your agenda. Subject is notable, but there are not references to support the amount of content that was previously in the article. Keep as stub, trash without it. --OperaJaws (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC) — OperaJaws (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I found no evidence of notability, even when I looked at the past history to see what had been removed from the article. A Google News Archive search found literally nothing. As far as I can tell, he is not an "activist"; he is a professional promoter of the drug. An alternative to deletion would be a redirect to Ibogaine, but personally I don't think he is notable enough for even a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not notable in connection with the drug. That may be his only claim to notability, but he does not pass the general notability guidelines for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are not so specific. It's up to us to reach consensus if being an advocate of this drug is notable or not. The sources do say he is a known (leading?) advocate in connection with the drug. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 20:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joju George[edit]

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

Seems to be a restaurateur with a passing mention in the only source given, otherwise a supporting actor. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 10:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable person. Jared Preston (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This actor has performed in 50+ movies and has proved his talent in both his passions, hospitality and acting. The page deserves to be maintained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prardhana (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is not that he has talent, it is whether the talent has been covered in reliable sources which confirm any notability. Many of us are extremely talented. Very few of us are notable in a Wikipedia sense. At present all we know form the sources is that the gentleman exists. That is never sufficient. Fiddle Faddle 12:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 20:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti Shriji[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, almost no news coverage. Only mentioned on her own website, her father's website and some youtube videos. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Passing mentions and family websites are not references worth a candle. Fiddle Faddle 10:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Asaram Bapu. Passing mentions notable enough for inclusion in the father's article, doesn't need a standalone article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 11:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vecna[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. All of the sources in the article do not verify notability, as they are not independent of the creators of Dungeons & Dragons. A cursory search on the internet did not give any evidence of the existence of good independent sources on this topic which cover it in depth. The importance of this topic within D&D is irrelevant to notability unless it can be demonstrated that there are independent sources which provide significant coverage. Simone 08:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep there are no reported issues with this article so taking to AFD is bad faith. There are sources, ignoring those to push a point of view or agenda is also bad faith. Web Warlock (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the old AFD on this was Keep. So no, this is a keep as well. Web Warlock (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Please link to the AfD. And note that consensus can change. Particularly if the old AfD was based on claims of "coverage in third party sources existing" somewhere that have not actually been produced to verify the claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on additions by Webwarlock. BOZ (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- see the talk page for an analysis of those sources and how they do not appear to actually address the WP:GNG requirements. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new additions made in the last day by Webwarlock indicate a notable presence in certain aspects of popular culture as affirmed by reliable sources. Guinness323 (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to a fansite that would love this kind of trivia. Based on the analysis of the sources added by WebWarlock on the Talk page, none of them actually provide anything that could be considered "significant coverage" by "reliable sources" about the "subject of the article" - they are mostly just trivial observations that happen to include Vecna. Perhaps a merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons would be acceptable, there is the Wired review that would provide at least one Third Party Source to that article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated: while the inclusion of more third party sources makes the introductory paragraph of this version something that could be argued to have "significant coverage by reliable third party sources", when all of the inuniverse fancruft is removed, you are pretty much left with that intro paragraph- content would still be appropriate for the suggested merge target List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and which would give THAT article at least some third party sources thus resulting in improving two article title spaces. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Nothing qualifying for significant coverage of the topic has been provided, so it should be removed unless WP:N and WP:WAF can be met. TTN (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (Merge possible) to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. The article itself fails to establish the notability of the topic, per the complete absence of "significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources" required by WP:GNG. Sources have been added, but I share TRPoD's assessment of these being only trivial mentions and not significant coverage, in the AfD talk page.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources 2 & 7. The former was written by another person commenting on other authors' creations within the D&D genre. Major plot entity over 30 years. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- as of this version reference 2 is Dragon Magazine, the officially licensed publication of Wizards of the Coast for the Dungeons and Dragons Franchise. Not an independent source. reference 7 as discussed on this talk page is a blog post that may or may not be argued is acceptably reliable, but the only content is a reference that "Vecna" is an anagram of "Vance". That is not significant. And just cause a fictional being was mentioned in print 30 years ago is not one of the riders providing an exception to the requirements of WP:GNG.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur with TRPoD, source 2 is not independent no matter how much you wish it could be, source 7 is trivial.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - When the article referenced by Source 2 was written in 2007, Dragon was -- and had been for a number of years -- independently published by Paizo, under a license agreement with WotC. Paizo was not owned by Wizards of the Coast; quite the contrary, in 2008 when WotC revoked the license to publish Dragon and introduced a new edition of D&D that superseded the current v3.5, Paizo became a competitor by publishing its own role-playing system, Pathfinder, based on the old v3.5 system. While there is no question that Dragon was tightly tied to the D&D gaming community, its editorial staff, artists and writers were not employed by WotC. Guinness323 (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - "under official license agreement" is the definition of NOT independent "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example.". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If Paizo was contractually tied to WotC, then there is no question of independence.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This is nonsense - like saying that a mathematics text is not independent because it's written by a mathematician and appears in a maths journal. Most authors and publishers have a pecuniary interest in their work. It's the fact that people pay money for it that gives it value. Warden (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Your comment is nonesense. WP:GNG clearly states that "independence" "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it".Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The subject here is Vecna, who is an imaginary character. Obviously no-one is affiliated with someone who doesn't exist. The idea of independence is to exclude vanity sources like autobiographies. The sources we have here are fine and the more canonical they are, the better. Warden (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You are back to that nonsensical position? Vecna is a fictional creation covered by intellectual property rights that are owned by TRS, bought up by WoTC and were covered under the official license agreement with Piazo during their publication of Dragon. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

When Dragon was published by TSR, there was no question that Dragon was an mouthpiece of TSR with the sole purpose of promoting TSR products. However, once WotC was tken over by Hasbro, it was no longer interested in publishing a magazine. Rather than let the magazine die, some D&D enthusiasts led by Erik Mona formed Paizo and "rented" the license to publish Dragon from WotC; Paizo then kept the profits (if any) that it made from publishing the magazine. Paizo did not receive any funds from WotC in compensation, other than fees WotC paid for advertising. While Dragon continued to be the voice of D&D, Paizo never was a publishing arm of WotC, and its editorial voice was that of the D&D enthusiast, not the game manufacturer. Editorially, Paizo publicly disagreed with the direction WotC was taking D&D -- both inside and outside the pages of Dragon. WotC eventually withdrew the license to publish rather than let its competitor continue to use it as a bully pulpit. To insist that Paizo was not an independent voice because it paid WotC for the license to publish is to ignore the often testy relationship between the two companies. Guinness323 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to see the point of "independence" as related to the WP concept of Notability, ie "attention from the world at large". Companies or products directly tied to the creator do not represent the "world at large", and cannot establish that the topic is worth mentioning on WP. Paizo, as the licenced published of an official WotC product, does not represent the world at large, only the small microcosm of the D&D copyright holders and their subcontractors. Your mention of divergence bewteen Paizo and WotC is irrelevant in that respect, besides it does not correspond to what reliable sources state about the non-renewed licence, which was because WotC wanted to switch to online. Whatever the tone they were using, they paid to benefit from WotC's official seal and were paid thanks to it, and as such were not an independently notable publication (ie they didn't acquire their name, readership and reputation on their own, without help from the D&D/WotC brand). They represented the D&D brand and didn't mention its product by choice, but because the creators licensed them to do so, no matter the tone they ended up using. And when WotC no longer wanted the publication to exist, it stopped. There is just no way that could be called independence.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topics in the field of higher mathematics such as direct sum do not receive attention from the "world at large", only from mathematical texts written by experts who have a vested interest in the topic. The same goes for countless other narrow, specialist topics which Wikipedia routinely covers on its front page and elsewhere - obscure fungi, plants, places, people, &c. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that means that it covers pretty much everything, not just topics of general interest. Compared to other topics, D&D and its elements, is quite accessible and familiar to millions of people who have played it or heard of it. The specialist journals which cover D&D are those such as Dragon; White Dwarf; Dungeoneer, &c. The fact that they specialise in the topic is a reason to be using them; not a reason to discount them. The article now has numerous good sources of this kind so should obviously be kept. Warden (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That articles exist does not necessarily mean that they should exist. Science is not exempt from meeting the GNG, and it would be nice if you stopped bringing obviously irrelevant comparisons with badly sourced articles that seem to forget that WP is not a math textbook. Wikipedia can cover pretty much everything indeed, but it does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet. As far as WotC-owned magazine, the fact that they are not independent from the subject or its creator, per WP:GNG, is a reason to discount them when assessing notability and whether the article should exist. There are only sources of this kind to back up the article so it should obviously not be kept.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I am pretty sure that direct sum was never engaged in an official license agreement with math; nor were the sources used in direct sum ever engaged in official license agreements with the creators of math. If you can provide that evidence, well then we have something to discuss. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Authors in the field of mathematics will sign contracts with the publishers. All professional publishing is governed by legal arrangements and it is such professionalism that we prefer in our sources. These attempts to deny the sources for D&D topics are absurd - a double-standard which is not applied to other types of topic. Warden (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers in the field of mathematics are not affiliated with math or its creator. Please stop pushing for absurd and irrelevant comparisons. WP:GNG exists and D&D is not exempt from it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers and authors who specialise in mathematics are obviously affiliated with it. They will typically be affiliated to mathematical associations and will derive their income from the topic. There's no difference. Warden (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You propose a non-consensual interpretation of "independence" as related to notability. Numerous recent AfD disprove your views since sources such as Dragon and the D&D official books themselves have been discounted. There is nothing more to be said.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general outcome seems to be that major recurring villains in substantial fictional universes have articles about them - see Magneto; Moriarity; The Master, &c. Vecna seems similar. Warden (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just now you were saying that we should look at the precedents created by other cases. In choosing such precedents, we should obviously choose similar cases. As WP:OSE says, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides". Warden (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited example of consistent consensuses reached on the application and meaning of policy, which is of course fundamental for the good working of WP. You have randomly referred to articles that have never been tested against policy and thus cannot be taken as having created "precedents".WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS specifically explains that it's not because an article merely exists that it means it doesn't violate our policies.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those other articles have been tested by numerous reviews by multiple projects. They are clearly here to stay. Warden (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are not notability tests. Only AfDs are per WP:FAILN, but I will remark that none of the article you mention withstood review as they either never passed GA or have been demoted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The connection with Jack Vance alone is enough to make the topic notable - see Four ways Jack Vance influenced Dungeons & Dragons or Advanced Readings in D&D: Jack Vance for example. Our editing policy then applies and so there is no case for deletion. Warden (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, what makes a topic notable is the presence of significant coverage from reliable secondary independent sources, which is not the case here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited multiple good sources. If they need adding to the article then that's a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are just short, trivial mentions, not meeting the requirement of "significant coverage". Four ways Jack Vance influenced Dungeons & Dragons is probably unreliable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those pieces tell about Vecna in detail and all the sources seem to agree on the facts, which do not seem to be in dispute. They pass WP:SIGCOV easily. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, one short sentence is not "in detail", and doesn't allow to build an article that wouldn't violate WP:NOTPLOT. Four ways Jack Vance influenced Dungeons & Dragons is from a blacklisted website.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that there are numerous good sources for the topic. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Simply being named after someone notable does not confer notability. Otherwise, Doctor What, Doctor Whom, Doctor Whooves, Doctor Why, Doctor Watt, Doctor Whozonfirst, The Professor, Inspector Spacetime, Tractor Who, and every other character on this page would each merit a separate article just about them for no other reason than being named after Doctor Who. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article you give as a counter-example is a blue-link. That demonstrates that there is no case for deletion. Warden (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The case we're making is that the topic is not fit for a separate article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a deletion discussion. If the case for deletion has collapsed, as it seems, then we're done. Editing of the article along with all the other D&D material is ordinary editing. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Case for deletion has not collapsed as the article is not notable. Managing non-notable article is not clean up.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FdF's !vote was not delete. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is acceptable per WP:MERGE#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion, and in keeping with the nomination rationale which is fundamentally correct in its assertion of non-notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still not hearing a case for deletion. This is Articles for Deletion not Articles for Editing or Articles for Argument. Warden (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a case for deletion as I agree with the nomination assessing the topic as non-notable, as I propose a redirect which is essentially deletion without history deletion. I only suggest merge as a compromise per WP:MERGE#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion. Both are acceptable recommendations as listed at WP:AFDFORMAT. I can't see anything more to be said on the matter and I advise you against arguing in circles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect preserves the topic as a blue link-title and tells the reader to expect something about it at the destination. It is functionally equivalent to keep the topic, not deleting it. Warden (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A redirect is a page which has no content itself", hence functionally equivalent to deletion. Please stop arguing in circles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FdF's !vote talks of merger and so it is apparent that he wishes Wikipedia to contain both information about the topic and its title as a blue link. The mystery is why FdF argues so furiously when he is so clearly wanting to retain the topic. Warden (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about the article. I have given my opinion that the topic doesn't deserve a stand-alone article, I see no point in further discussing this as it is very clear.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's my !vote you're badgering here. If you have nothing further to say, then please remain silent. I'm just trying to make it clear that my !vote stands and your reams of argumentation have not changed my position which is based upon the notability demonstrated by numerous good sources. Warden (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about ? You're the one badgering Egsan Bacon's comment and my !vote here by explicitely referring to it two times in a row. You're the one who should stop arguing around in circles, before you slip again into personal attacks and get blocked for it. I understand you're frustration at meeting opposition, but you must learn to drop the stick at some point. If you don't want to be answered to, then don't comment, and certainly don't comment upon me if you can't stand me to answer you. And if you're not longer able to keep track of the discussion you're commenting in, then it's definitely time for you to stop.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article I gave as an example is not an article about a specific thing like the one up for discussion is. List of Doctor Who parodies is a very long list made up largely of many things that would never be able to support an article on their own. The question isn't if, for example, Doctor Whooves is notable enough to be mentioned there, it's if he's notable enough for his own article. Currently, he is not. (Doctor Whooves is a redirect.) If you're suggesting that Vecna's place is on a list of that sort, that would mean you're supporting a merge and you might want to note that you've changed your !vote. If you're suggesting that the existence of a very long list of characters named after Doctor Who, characters that do not have their own articles, supports Vecna having his own article, I'm afraid I don't see how.

If the link being a blue link is the problem, I have some more examples for you. Shea Jones, Brielle D'Shea Larkin, and Shea Cooper were all named by their ballplayer fathers after Shea Stadium, but that does not make them notable. (In reference to your comment "The connection with Jack Vance alone is enough to make the topic notable".) Likewise, my friend's pet, Jeter (cat), is also not notable. I support a Redirect/Merge, just like, for example, Benjamin Franklin Gates (character), the main character of the National Treasure franchise, or the above mentioned Doctor Whooves. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added one source. As of now, sources 2, 8, 25, 27, 29 (and 16 and 18 to some degree) are independent and show a general relevance of the subject. Daranios (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source 29 is a self-published fan wikia therefore unreliable, sources 16 and 18 are forum posts so self-published and unreliable. Besides, none of the sources provide any significant coverage on the subject.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say e.g. that Vecna is "everybody’s favorite evil wizard..." and that Vecna's Hand made it into 4th Editions DMG as a classic D&D artifact. That does not sound trivial to me. Daranios (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is still a "passing mention" that doesn't exceed one sentence. The aim of significant coverage is to provide enough out of universe info to outweigh plot summary, per WP:GNG. Is that the case ? No. One or two sentences here and there do not make an article notable.

In my opinion, the fact that it is one sentence in itself does not make a reference a "passing mention", if this sentence says something relevant, like: This topic is important for D&D. Ratio between real-world and in-universe imformation may be improved for Vecna, but that is no reason for deletion. Daranios (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what is your basis for the assumption that "Ratio between real-world and in-universe imformation may be improved "? the character has been around for 40 odd years and yet the only thing people find worthy of commenting on is " His name is an anagram" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally, I was thinking that the plot summary part might be somewhat shortened by people who feel that it is too large for Wikipedia. But you wanted to know what's there apart from that, right? The sources say it is an important topic within D&D as the character as well as his artifacts; publication history; origin of name; use in other media both connected and unconnected to D&D. So why throw that out? By the way, one independent source was just published in 2013, so I would not exclude further developments. Daranios (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When those sources from the future actually come into publication then we can use them to spin out a stand alone article for any content that may become too large to properly include in a parent article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(That's why I mentioned it by the way, as you asked for the basis of my assumption.... My opinion stands on the sources as they are now. Daranios (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Two things: Wikipedia:GNG#cite_note-1 disagrees with you about what is significant coverage, and if the amount of plot summary was trimmed down to give priority to out-of-universe information as per WP:NOTPLOT, then we would just have a stub that could be easily merged anywhere. If you agree the topic was artificially made to take up a whole stand-alone article because of excessive plot summary, and if you agree this could be be trimmed, may I suggest you, for the sake of compromise, to rally to the idea of a merge that would allow us to retain as much in/out of universe info as possible, in a win-win situation ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the same discussion already took place about Caramon Majere. The example Wikipedia:GNG#cite_note-1 says much less than the sources here, so I think it does not apply. And the publication history alone is longer than your usual stub. I think a merge would not be a good solution. An article with a somewhat shortened plot summary (and room for later improvement) would be a good solution. Daranios (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Caramon Majere didn't end the way you wanted. I disagree on the publication history, it appears long only because it was badly formatted to be so. Remove the subsections for each edition, remove line breaks after each sentence, create proper paragraphs and you're left with content taking up much less space. Besides, the history is only sourced to primary sources, which cannot be used as the basis for a stand-alone article. You have to find enough secondary source to outweigh any primary content, and that's not the case. If you trim the plot summary, I maintain the article is easily mergeable. Note Vecna#Publishing_History reformatted. Not so impressive, suddently.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, do you really think the publication section of Vecna is now better? It's somewhat shorter, sure, but the splitting by edition made sense to me. Anyway, the publication section alone is still larger than 7 kB, while WP:AS suggests merging for articles roughly < 1kB. Sure, the section is based on primary sources. But it is real-world relevant content, and we have secondary sources for other parts of the article. Using solely secondary sources is not required. As with Caramon, neither of us seems to be able to convince the other of his position while interpreting WP:GNG. I am not sure how AfDs are closed, but I think it would be best if someone neutral could draw a conclusion about the article and the arguments presented before anything against the article is done. Daranios (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each paragraph is still focused on a separate edition. I think you're misusing WP:AS, which certainly doesn't say that anything above 1kb can't be merged, we've had a lot of recent example at AfD of 10kb+ ending up merged. That was also the case for Caramon Majere, despite its size. WP:NOTPAPER is clear that size concerns can't trump inclusion policies/guidelines, and the most minute details can certainly be purged from the publication history. You're right that using solely secondary sources is not required, however it is required that they make up the majority of the article. The only secondarily-sourced content in the article is: "The name Vecna was an anagram of Jack Vance, the fantasy author whose "fire-and-forget" magic system is used in Dungeons & Dragons. [...] According to Shannon Appelcline, the adventure "touched upon the oldest locales and the most ancient myths of the D&D game" by playing the Eye and Hand of Vecna against the cambion demigod Iuz." There is certainly room for merge.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to make clearer that there are quite some more passages based on secondary sources by my recent edits. I agree that size is just one indicator. Still, I am counting approximately 6+ kB of the article based on secondary sources now (counting sourced uses "in other media") - a minority of the whole article, but not to be just dismissed. Is there really a rule/guideline that says that secondary sources have to make up the majority of an article (assuming that there are several non-trivial ones there)? Daranios (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that content in "other media" is using sources primary to the other medium and not secondary to the medium (that would be publications reporting on the mention of Vecna in multiple media). So I'd say bellow 5kb. Still, do you realize the glaring discrepancy between that and the 22/23kb of plot summary ? WP:PSTS doesn't give a ratio but says articles must be based on 2ndary scs (which, per common sense, means they must outweigh any other kind of scs). No ratio in WP:NOTPLOT but it states "discussing the reception and significance [...] in addition to a concise summary", which, again per common sense, means plot summary must at least not outweigh (and probably should be shorter than) significance. WP:WAF#Plot_summaries states "length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections", which means that in any case, plot summary cannot outweigh other sections. If plot summary for Vecna is to be reduced so that it doesn't violate these rules, the whole article would be 10/12kb, if we follow WP:AS that's mergeable. A merge will allow to keep a reasonable amount of plot, but if you insist on retaining it as a stand-alone, it will have to be trimmed down to ~10kb at some point and be merged anyway.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General answer: 1) No matter the letter, in my opinion the spirit of WP:GNG is fulfilled. So let's keep the article. 2) In what way would Wikipedia benefit from either a merge or even a deletion of the article?
Specific answer: I feel we may have a long discussion about the usability and nature of the "In other media" section. To save time, I would like to postpone this discussion until the question about the article really hinges on that paragraph. Without it, secondary sources cover only 4+ kB of content. If you want to argument with WP:AS, it would give no reason to merge, even if only this content was present, as this guideline qualifies a normal article roughly between 1 kB and 50 kB. With 1500+ characters, it would also automatically not be classfied as a stub. But of course there is much more content. Also, not 22/23 kB are plot summary: The "Publication history" is based on primary sources, but is real-world content. So is "In other media" (where primary/secondary nature of sources could be discussed.)
A suggestion: Both sides have brought quite a large number of arguments. I expect, we can lead this discussion for some time more. But what about drawing a line now, to save time, and ask for a neutral administrator to evaluate if the majority (Keep, purely by count) is overturned by the better arguments of the minority, or not, or to tell us what should be done if the best course is inbetween? Daranios (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) I disagree that you would accurately represent the "spirit" of GNG, and I actually am not very fond of this way of taking the "spirit" of a rule to make it say whatever you want... If I say (for example) "user X behaves like an asshole", and not "user X is an asshole", it could be argued I'm faithful to the spirit of WP:NPA (or not). Strip away a rule from its words and you can make it say just anything. That's why I don't think you can hide behind the excuse of the "spirit over the words", if your opinion is not explicitely supported by GNG, then it's not, period. 2) Merging would allow us to better include the few scattered sentences of external coverage in WP itself while not dooming the article the "stub label-of-shame", and it would respect WP policies. As I said before, you're misusing WP:AS, which certainly doesn't say that anything above 1kb can't be merged. Don't forget that WP:WHYN explicitly states that "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Plot summary is definition of a topic. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...aaand as we've probably said many times before there is a difference between the independent secondary sources used to define notability and the sources one may use to flesh out content (which may at times be primary). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yessssss, when you have one paragraph worth of content sourced to third parties, you can "flesh out" another paragraph based on primary sources. After that you are no longer "fleshing out" the content of the independent sources you are basing your article on the primary sources which is expressly identified as inappropriate WP:WHYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, please read WP:PSTS more carefully, though primary sources can contribute to the overall content, their use must be limited, and the article must be based on/fleshed out by 2ndary sources only.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, bad choice of words on my part. If you would have looked at the link I provided with my formulation "spirit of WP:GNG", you would have seen that I was indeed referring directly to WP:GNG - not hiding behind anything! - specifically to the section that describes the root of WP:GNG. In my opinion, there is no problem at any of the points mentioned with Vecna: 1) We can write a whole article. The existence of the article with sources demonstrates that. 2) No non-sensical content present. 3) No original research (except possibly for the very small snippets where it is indicated). 4) No problem with balance (three independent and one dependent secondary source say the topic is relevant within D&D, so that can be seen as established).

As for use of merge for Wikipedia: I do not see your point. Merging would just bloat up another article without great improvement, while this article vanishes for those who are interested in such things.

As for WP:AS: Whatever it can do for my position, it demonstrates that size cannot be used as an argument for merge or deletion. In the same vain, the guidelines, which I have been asked to stick to, say that the content based on independent secondary sources alone, even excluding the disputed "In other media" section, would not get the "stub label-of-shame"! But again, there is of course much more to the article than only that content. Daranios (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) There's no possibility of writing a whole article with just a handful of non-plot content. See WP:WHYN "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page." Remember, we both agree that after cutting needless plot summary, the article would only amount to a stub. 4) Per WP:GNG, what matters is not (only) the number of sources, but the quality and quantity of their content. If your 3 independent sources only have passing mentions and only allow to write one sentence from each, then no the article is not notable.

As for the use of merge, funny that you consider this article good enough for stand-alone, but somehow such greeeat content wouldn't be so great anymore when merged elsewhere ? Makes no sense at all. Content stays the same whether merged or stand-alone, otherwise you're just arguing for the sake of it. "Bloating" is a non-issue, per WP:PAPER, size cannot trump inclusion guidelines, and a huge amount of plot summary can be trimmed here and in merge targets anyway. And if you argue that the content itself would "vanish", then you fail to understand what "merging" means. Again, there is no choice to be made here, it's either, deletion, redirection, or a merge, but there's no keeping the article in the long term, that's just not a policy-supported option.

WP:AS is not concerned with merging an article anyway, but with splitting. WP:STUB is not concerned with notability but with size only. WP:WHYN is what demonstrates that size, as related to notability, must be used as an argument for merge.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahm, would you be so kind to read my last entry again? You have misrepresented my statements in several points: 1) I do not at all agree that the article would be a stub, even if only the parts based on secondary sources were present (and neither I nor Wikipedia's guidelines find plot summary "needless"). On the contrary: It would be too big for all example criteria mentioned in WP:Stub! It would have more than 250 words, more than 10 sentences, more than 1500 characters. 2) I do not argue, that content vanishes in merging per se. I have said that the article would vanish. And that would, in my opinion, a loss for Wikipedia. 3) If we would keep the content without (in my opinion) undue reduction, there would be no improvement in dumping it into another page in a merge. This would not make the target page greater than having Vecna and a possible target page seperately. (Ok, maybe that last one was not formulated completely clear by me.)

That said, I agree we have to consider WP:GNG. I am now counting approximately 14 sentences of material based on secondary sources (again, even excluding "In other media"). That is more than "a few". It's more than a definition. It's more than "half a paragraph". So no problem there. In case you think differently, should we not now call in someone neutral to evaluate the article, this whole discussion, and the question if the significance of secondary sources is fulfilled? Daranios (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Web Warlock. Hihidufgh (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to ignore the discussion establishing the sources as not significant...Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...which is, indeed, under discussion, not established. Daranios (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources meet the GNG. Iconic figure that has seen coverage because he's an iconic figure. Of Dice and Men would be one example... Hobit (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons. Royal Mate1 01:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I express no opinion on this subject, but I want to point out that the nominator here is actually User:Claritas with a misleading signature. As part of the user's second chance negotiations, this account is subject to a voluntary restriction against participating in AfDs (let alone starting them). The discussion here confirms the community's view on Claritas' AfD restriction. Is there any evidence that consensus has changed and Claritas now has standing to start AfDs?—S Marshall T/C 22:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've gone straight to AN/I because this looks pretty clear-cut to me.—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge - Subject should be discussed in detail with the campaign settings he is based around, I even remember seeing the Billy and Mandy reference with the Eye of Vecna and a few mentions of the Hand of Vecna in other places. Actually the artifacts of Vecna are more of the reason to keep the Vecna page than any other. Roguelikes like Angband and Slash'EM feature Vecna and ones like Baldur's Gate II, Planescape have easter eggs or minor nods as well. While some like Michael Bridges reviews D&D matters, he does appear to be important within the community if not for the Oerth Journal, a decent publication in the process of 80s and 90s counterculture. He is a Greyhawk artist and does various things besides reviewing Greyhawk material.[16] He runs the Greyhawk blog and analyzed the material of Vecna in 4E from the Dragon publication.[17] More offline sources likely to be found, but merging the several pages into one to serve a higher purpose is probably the best. Does not need to be deleted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found another review and commentary on Vecna.[18] Though while not a member of Wizards, Ken Hart is a contributor, so aside from the platform, this may be type of secondary source for commentary even if it was picked up by Dragon - Making the jump from unreliable fan commentary and discussion in the process.[19] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources sufficient to demonstrate that the GNG are met are in the article and/or have been referenced above. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 20:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WxDownload Fast[edit]

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

Non notable piece of software that has not been updated in six years. Four sources: one primary source; one dead link; and two unrelated articles, which make no mention of the software. Laurent (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Should have been gone long ago, by the looks of it. Written as an advertisement. Human.v2.0 (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no RSes either at the article or through Google. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Bartlett[edit]

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

A Google News Archive search for [ "Darren Bartlett" composer | singer | pianist | piano | vocalist | vocals ] provided me with just two unimpressive hits. I tried a similar Google web search, looked through the first two results pages, and found nothing impressive. I found no biography on AllMusic either.

So, Mr. Bartlett unfortunately appears not to meet our inclusion criteria as summarized at WP:GNG.

User:Amatulic adds[20] that the sources cited in the article "are mostly trivial mentions, album credits, youtube videos, coverage of the subject's work and not the subject himself".

Dear article creator: Even though the article is likely to be deleted, you may still salvage the article by properly transwiki-ing it to some other wiki before it's deleted. Next time, please see WP:42 before you create another article.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in fairness to the author (who is apparently the subject of this autobiography), valiant efforts have been made to improve the sourcing over the last couple of months. There may be some good ones in there now, but overall I agree it's pretty weak. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2013 (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) 05:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impressively-written vanity piece, makes him larger than life. The sources don't back him up, though, as most are either trivial mentions or concert write-ups (ie promotional and non-independent). Fails WP:MUSICIAN. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without prejudice to any merger discussion. Sandstein 11:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

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

Non-notable component of a commercial gaming process, which fails WP:GNG. There article makes no assertion that the gaming pack has any real-world significance, let alone providing any evidence of it.

There are plenty of references, which initially looks impressive. However, all but two of the refs are to the website of the game's publisher "Wizards of the Coast", which is not an independent source.

The other two refs are to:

http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/arabiannights.php which looks like a fansite, and has non eof the characteristics of a reliable source
http://www.deckcheck.net/list.php?type=Mana+Ichorid&format=Vintage, which is a defunct website. I checked the page in the Internet Archive, but there doesn't seem to be any mirror of any substantive content

Editors may want to redirect the page title to Magic: The Gathering, though I have doubts that this is a plausible search term BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also group nomination of other articles on MTG expansion sets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion (Magic: The Gathering). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All SqueamishOrange's comments in the omnibus nominations above apply here - InQuest Gamer and Scrye extensively covered each and every set of Magic, including retrospectives for early releases such as these, and they were the two premier publications in the card-gaming industry in the 1990s; coverage has only increased since then as the game has become even more popular. Plenty of secondary source material here, even if that is not evident in the current revisions for some of these articles. Chubbles (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See comments on other articles nominated for deletion. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Magic: The Gathering early expansions: Yes, the article needs more sourcing. Yes, there's content that can be salvaged. No, it doesn't deserve its own article anymore than the recent expansions do (see the RfC at Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering) for why they don't anymore). Yes, I've been toying with proposing that merge for a month now, and this seems as good a time as anyp b p 17:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read Scrye starting with the first issue, and the early issues definitely provided significant coverage even of the Magic sets that came out before the magazine started being published. I believe InQuest Gamer also covered the earliest sets. Calathan (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overly adverse to an editorial merge, but the GNG really isn't a problem here, there was plenty of third party coverage in reliable sources as others have noted. So keep and have any merge discussion on the talk page. This doesn't belong at AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments in the related AfDs. --Phyrexian ɸ 20:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shii (tock) 04:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

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

Non-notable commercial product, fails WP:GNG. This is a part of a gaming set, and while the gaming set itself may well be notable ( I haven't checked it), this expansion set is not. The references are either to fansites (which fail WP:RS) or to the game's publisher Wizards of the Coast (which is not an independent source). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Magic: The Gathering is definitely notable as the first collectible card game. Regarding the expansions, there is an article for almost every set, and many of them are in similar shape. See Template:MTG navbox for a list. --jonny-mt 10:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't examined the notability of the main article, but it is probably a different case. The matter of it being the first collectible game is an assertion of importance, rather than of notability. A quick glance at Magic: The Gathering shows that although it is flooded with refs to the company's website, it does appear to have enough independent refs to satisfy WP:GNG.
  As to expansions, I will check out the others and may do a group AFD nom for them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also group nomination of other articles on MTG expansion sets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion (Magic: The Gathering). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See comments on other articles nominated for deletion. There is no longer "an article for almost every set." There is an article for every block (recently consolidated); each block includes three expansions. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All SqueamishOrange's comments in the omnibus nominations above apply here - InQuest Gamer and Scrye extensively covered each and every set of Magic, including retrospectives for early releases such as these, and they were the two premier publications in the card-gaming industry in the 1990s; coverage has only increased since then as the game has become even more popular. Plenty of secondary source material here, even if that is not evident in the current revisions for some of these articles. Chubbles (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Magic: The Gathering early expansions: Yes, the article needs more sourcing. Yes, there's content that can be salvaged. No, it doesn't deserve its own article anymore than the recent expansions do (see the RfC at Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering) for why they don't anymore). Yes, I've been toying with proposing that merge for a month now, and this seems as good a time as anyp b p 17:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read Scrye starting with the first issue, and the early issues definitely provided significant coverage even of the Magic sets that came out before the magazine started being published. I believe InQuest Gamer also covered the earliest sets. Calathan (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments in the related AfDs. Hobit (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Cross-posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion (Magic: The Gathering)) Though it pains my little fanboy heart, these standalone articles are not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. The articles are almost exclusively sourced from the Wizards of the Coast homepage and the blogs/Tumblrs/etcetera of the designers and staff that worked on the product, which means they are not third-party sources and therefore cannot be used as reliable sources. To respond to the comments saying we should keep these because Wikipedia is a good source of this information, I'd like to point you to the MTG Salvation Wiki as well as this list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and rationales why they are not useful. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF.

A portion of the content could be merged into the main article. --jonny-m t 01:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review your vote. Since nomination, all the articles now have on average 2 "third-party sources" as references, some as many as 5. Plenty more can be added. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments in the related AfDs. --Phyrexian ɸ 20:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States House of Representatives elections, 2004#Wisconsin. Mr.Z-man 20:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald H. Boyle[edit]

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

Obscure ex-soldier and badly failed politician; fails all tests of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 05:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections, 2004#Wisconsin, as no main article for the state/year yet exists and would currently redirect to the main article. Discrete search term, already included in the results there. Dru of Id (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vancouver School Board. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Osler Elementary School[edit]

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

No reason is offered for the notability of what appears to be a run-of-the-mill elementary school. This mere mention, for instance, does not help. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vancouver School Board. While it doesn't appear to be individually notable, redirects are cheap. LadyofShalott 05:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vancouver School Board per standard procedure for nn schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as above. Only a couple of independent reliable sources even mention this school, and those are brief and mention the subject in passing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be fine with a redirect--I keep forgetting that, what, isn't it an option from "most likely outcomes" or something like that? Drmies (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Boswell Romany Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. just a small local museum. I found no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Daily Telegraph (2004) [21]; Times Educational Supplement (2008) [22]; Respekt (in Czech, 2011) [23]. Also GBooks produces assorted mentions in travel books and books about Romany culture such as [24][25][26][27][28] (hidden snippet, but the visible excerpt includes the phrase "probably the best collection of Romani vardos (wagons), caravans and crafts"). --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lexx. Wanting to discuss a topic in more depth does not automatically make that topic notable. Having a standalone article requires real-world notability. Alternately, a List of characters article would also be acceptable, keeping WP:INUNIVERSE in mind. Mr.Z-man 20:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kai (LEXX)[edit]

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

Kai is one of the protagonists of the TV series Lexx. After three years of the article having notability concerns, I boldly redirected it to the main article, but I was quickly reverted. So, here we are. Kai has many fan pages and a few trivial mentions scattered throughout reliable sources, but Lexx never truly broke out of cult TV show territory. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable breakout-for-length of the main article at Lexx. Breaking out characters is common, and this one requires some length. It would be reasonable to merge in the further breakouts Divine Assassin and Brunnen-G. JJL (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the main article/character list should one be created. Character lists can be spin-off articles, but single characters need to stand out on their own and do not inherit notability. Without anything to establish real world relevance, over ten paragraphs of plot information is not necessary. TTN (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. To JJL's comment, while a breakout from an series article is reasonable, the first stop is nearly always a list of characters article, which is generally accepted as long as the main show is shown notable; the splitout of a single character requires that character to have out-of-universe notability (such as development or reception about the character). This would be a reasonable solution for Kai and any of the other characters listed at {{Lexx}}. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree- the main Lexx Article is way too long to consider merging this article in. On top of it all, this is the second time this vote has come up. The consensus was "keep" that time, too, for the same reasons. The idea of merging all the main and minor characters is going to create a list at least as long as the origional lexx page. Honestly, if it were possible to pare down the Lexx page more it might be wise to do so as it's pretty overgrown. Notability for all the major characters does exist, but people need to go in and establish it with links to various news articles and fan sites telling about development, fan reception and other things. Yes, it's arduous, but if multiple people add a little at a time it won't be so bad.

As a side note, NinjaRobotPirate's redirects were done very suddenly with zero discussion on the main Lexx Talk page (to which Kai's article was redirected). In fact, he stuck redirects on every single character page without asking anyone at all or even attempting to hold a discussion. --Lamoxlamae (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's too much to try and combine smoothly (the movies/tv series is rather long-running by most standards). The article itself could use a bit of work and better citations, but I think that deletion on the grounds of notability is uncalled for. Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information doesn't really matter unless the topic itself can establish notability. If it cannot, it needs to be pruned to a reasonable level in the main article or a list. The in-universe information needs to be a summary amount suitable to its level of notability. There should be no reason that it cannot be summed up in a few sentences (article) or a few paragraphs (list). If you're looking for over ten paragraphs of plot info without meeting WP:N, Wikia is more suitable. TTN (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen your argument, you have tons of these nominations on a sliding scale of sensibility. Agree to disagree, but in this particular case I think you're on the wrong side of the line. Telling people "if you don't like it, go to a different website" is exceedingly inappropriate as well.Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I can be wrong if there is no assertion of notability. Failing to meet WP:N means that an article cannot exist, and the management of plot information is not a reason to keep it. Wikia is where fiction can freely be documented without having to worry about meeting encyclopedic standards, so someone looking to do that would find that more suitable. If the character can establish notability, providing some sources would clear any doubts. TTN (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from, but you seem to be taking an overall dislike with "pop out" articles but have only (from what I've really seen, with a limited interest in scanning people's edit history) applied this to articles involving some aspect of fiction. While I agree with a good portion of these (the random sprawl of minor D&D elements, for example), it is also within wikipedia practices of have "list of characters" or individual character entries as the case may merit. I personally believe that in this case the situation merits; this is a main character of a long-running movie/tv series with good coverage and sources. You're verging on I Don't Like It territory in regards to standing policy and AfD consensus on something that is not a black-and-white situation that you clearly have a specific opinion on. Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of characters are the only ones given a free pass, but not even they are completely exempt. It is not common practice to allow for standalone character articles to exist only on in-universe info. Only those who show potential for improvement or those that have not been dealt with still exist. Policy agrees with that interpretation, and it would require ignoring a lot of the finer details to make a case otherwise. As for my own editing, I find dealing with fiction to be the most enjoyable, and it's hardly that I don't like it. That interpretation would require that I try to get articles that clearly establish notability deleted. If the character has "good coverage and sources", you should supply them. It's not like the article has to be instantly improved, and simply showing potential would be enough. TTN (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure the major reason most the Lexx character pages don't have full references and such is because it's a series which makes it a lot more difficult than working with a shorter work like a film. When dealing with a TV series giving good citations often requires that people go into transcripts of scripts and creator comments, find where it states something then put it up as a reference link to improve citation.There are 61 episodes in Lexx with each transcript being at least 10 pages long: over 600 pages of reading. Heaven help you if your memory is fuzzy on which episode that detail showed up in!

This doesn't even include the time spent hopping along creators websites, doding defunct webpages, trying to make the wayback machine work and gleaning through fan sites to gather more information. It gets to be very involved and daunting and I can't blame people for being scared. In short, it's a not a case of "absence of evidence being evidence of absence", it's a case of mountains of work being mountains of work and people not wanting to spend 10+ hours per article making citations.

On a side note, if anyone reading this would like to work with me on getting the main character pages up to snuff, contact me on my talk page. I can share some good jump-off points and we can work together to lighten the load. --Lamoxlamae (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2013 (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) 02:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Masem. The article fails to establish the notability of the topic, per the complete absence of "significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources" required by WP:GNG (blogs and fansites are of course not reliable). The keep !votes do not provide any policy-based reasoning and their claims that the article is too long to be merged contradict WP:AVOIDSPLIT, any content can be appropriately trimmed before a merge, and per WP:PAPER, size alone is not a valid reason to ignore policies and guidelines such as WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Per Masem. Character has not been shown to be notable enough to generate independent coverage, and would be better located as part of a character list article. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences[edit]

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

The information in the article isn't verifiable because it was written only on self-citations instead of independent secondary sources. More, the subject perhaps isn't notable because it seems that there is no coverage in independent secondary sources at all. Renju player (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- appears to have sources from more than one author/source. Lesion (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the quality of the sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This organisation lacks significant coverage in reliable source which is required by WP:ORG. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, hard to find sources, but i added a huffpo column to the refs (not filled out yet), and this book from them was companion to a turner broadcasting series. and Raymond Buckland gives an overview here. What i do know is that its a nontraditional research institute thats highly thought of in the fields of its interest. I think some more digging should find enough refs.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added a primary source; the huffington piece is written by one of the proponents. It does not contribute to significant coverage in secondary sources WP:GNG The book is a primary source and not usable and irrelevant. Buckland, "a High Priest in both the Gardnerian and Seax traditions", publishing with a publisher who produce material for fringe proponents [29] is not a reliable source with most of its material taken straight from the word of Noetic institute (much of it coming from [30]. Even with that in mind, the coverage is only two paragraphs. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I am going to have to conclude that INS is really, really bad at having documented evidence of their notability, which i had presumed would exist given how prominent they are in their field. ~~if this is the best i can come up with, I think it should be merged to the institute creators as paragraphs in their articles.~~Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2013 (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) 02:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you search for "noetic science", you get hundreds of news stories. They generally refer to this institute. Noetic research was discussed in Dan Brown's novel The Lost Symbol (2009). Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC) SOCK[reply]

Which give any significant detail? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. In philosophy this institute has had a major influence and its general notability is clearly established by any search for noetic science. Just because one guy is bad at Google doesn't make this non-notable.Saylors (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before one nominates an article for deletion, one should look for sources. It's not enough to say the article isn't well-sourced. One must be able to say, with a straight face, that having made at least some effort to find sources, the article cannot be sourced.

BLP's are an exception. If a BLP relies exlusively or near-exlusively on derogatory information from even reliable sources, it needs deletion, quick-like-a-bunny. Happily, this is not a BLP. So there's no deadline.

User:Saylors has it right. I'm not a big fan of "all caps." But the exasperation I hear in his all caps "Strong keep" and his sharp-toungued sarcasm about google-competency fall on receptive ears here. David in DC (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of significant coverage is actually coverage of Mitchell: [31]. A one line mention of the organisation does not satisfy GNG. IRWolfie- (talk)

Ummm, no. My edit summary said I'd found one and I'd be back with more. After dealing with the duties of a suburbo-dad IRL, I've followed through. I apologize for how long it took me to get back. You're right, a full 15-hour gap between an edit summary promising to be back and following through on thatr promise quite reasonably strains some editors' ability to maintain an assumption of good faith. I'll try to get my priorities straight next time. You know, given the strict deadline we face to rescue or eradicate this page and all. David in DC (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been at this for much of a day now. I'm hoping any closer will review these edits and conclude that the initial rationale stated for this nom has been successfully addressed. Or that Renju player might consider withdrawing the nomination. David in DC (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally superfluous aside I'd like some style points for managing edits that connect William James to Dan Brown with only one degree of separation. Next to that, Six degrees of Kevin Bacon is mere child's play. David in DC (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This story looks like significant coverage to me: "Stars aligned: Astronaut's mission seeks to answer life's big questions". "Noetic science" is prominent in Brown's novel, and the phrase is a reference to this organization. Allah is an akbar (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I did some Google searching and found about 50 articles in publications like ABC News, USA Today, BusinessWeek, Time magazine, NPR, MSNBC and many others. And while the coverage was often incidental I think the sheer volume of mentions (in addition to the 25+ sources already cited in the article) satisfies WP:CORP's requirement for "significant coverage". More in depth information is contained in these books [32] [33] [34] [35]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I chose keep, above, then merge, now im back to keep, with keithbob's extra refs and the news article found by Allah is an akbar about their connection to dan browns book.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Moree in depth information is contained in these books": Written by INS: [36]. Not reliable in the slightest: [37] "Inside, you will find the truth behind The Lost Symbol's history and myths, such as: ... The founding fathers of the United States--and their possible connections with secret organizations such as the Illuminati and the Templars... The meaning within the symbols of the Great Seal of the United States ... The identity of the Masonic "Great Architect of the Universe". [38] has already been discussed above, not reliable at all. [39] is also written by Noetic members and the book sales go to the noetic sciences as the link says. These are not reliable secondary sources, and not independent of the promulgators of the organisation, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their ideas may be mostly nonsense, but there is no doubt that the institute is notable, especially now thanks to Dan Brown. Coverage like this from NPR make its notability clear. Even before Dan Brown, there was an extended TBS documentary about the institute. Like it or not, nonsense can result in notability. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 P. S. Nivas. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sevvanthi[edit]

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

non notable film. only ref IMDB. (one of MANY malasian movie stubs created by same editor)

previously deleted via PROD. second PROD iteration procedurally declined due to previous deletion and directed to go to AFD, so here we are! Gaijin42 (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please at least read articles before nominating them for deletion. This film is not malasian, or even Malaysian. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 02:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sadly, most of the Indian Newspaper archives do not store content for before 2000 or so. Not my first choice, but perhaps we can redirect this to director P. S. Nivas? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:29, 26 September 2013 (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) 02:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option Grid[edit]

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

Only one independent third-party sources to support notability whatsoever. Note that all but one of the journal articles are written by the information contact for Option Grid. The single third-party piece from British Journal of General Practice is simply a one page blurb about it. Admirable as an project as Option Grid may be, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for a new and non-notable medical tool. Also note that one of its creators was engaged in link canvassing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- it appears to meet notability as we have one independent source already, and a quick google search yields more, e.g.: [40], [41]. Article needs some more sources, but it doesn't seem like a true notability issue. Lesion (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dartmouth link is not independent; Dartmouth is the developer of the grid they describe. The Health Foundation was apparently also involved in the development of the grids, through its MAGIC program, so it is also not independent. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Trisha Greenhalgh article in BJGP is not just a blurb. She is an internationally recognized author / academic on the topic. Richard Lehman can maybe vouch for her and her total independence from this Collaborative. The other papers are in high quality peer reviewed journals and have multiple authors. Ariannablaine (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC) — Ariannablaine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The following paper also describes the use of Grids - and comes from the Health Foundation sponsored implementation programme called MAGIC: "Patchy 'coherence': using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)."^[1] These tools are a genuine attempt by an international collaboration to generate evidence based tools for patients - over 100 volunteers.Ariannablaine (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional 3rd party references exist and will be added to the article in the coming days. Additional references will be added so that there is atleast 1 per sentence, as per wiki guidelines.Ariannablaine (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it still needs some work it is notable enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the next step in getting this page removed from the deletion list? Ariannablaine (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most stay open for about a week then an admin closes the discussion according to the consensus. Lesion (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2013 (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) 02:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Decision aids. This is a brand-new (apparently created in 2012 or 2013) set of patient discussion guidelines that does not appear to have attracted enough notability for a separate article. In addition to the notability problem, the status of the guidelines is not clear from the article, which describes them as proprietary (and uses capital letters, Option Grids, as if this is a trade name), but which also says they are developed by a nonprofit and are freely available under a Creative Commons license. The "collaborative" developing the guidelines is vague and undefined; the article suggests a connection with Dartmouth; the website is maintained by Decision Laboratory, Institute of Primary Care & Public Health, Cardiff University; all in all the entire setup is very unclear. A Redirect will preserve the page history, and it could be re-expanded into a full article later if more independent sources appear. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closing administrator please note: this article was moved from Option Grid to Option grid during the course of the AfD discussion - although that may have been an incorrect move if the name actually is proprietary. Every source cited uses a capital G. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karna Shakya[edit]

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

There is no claim of notability. The article does not fulfill criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Given references do not contain any comment on the person, those are just lists of books. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important Nepali business entrepreneur and noted author. Here are some additional sources:

The Kathmandu Post. "His previous works—Soch, Khoj and Ma Garna Sakchhu—were all bestsellers"

The Kathmandu Post. "The film's script has been penned by Karna Shakya, a well-known writer"

The Kathmandu Post. "“The most popular Nepali authors today are Narayan Wagle, Krishna Dharabasi, Yug Pathak and Karna Shakya,” says Khagendra Bhattarai"

The Rising Nepal. "the movie has been developed by noted writer and entrepreneur Karna Shakya"

ECS Nepal. Interviewed as a "pioneer" hotelier in Nepal.

this source calls him "one of the fathers of tourism in Nepal".

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just dropped them into the ref section in case anyone wants to build article content. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2013 (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) 02:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to Green Cardamom for identifying sources that demonstrate this person's notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, those references show the subject is notable but the article was perhaps a bit lucky in avoiding a speedy request.[42] Green Cardamom's sources have been very helpful but the article rather urgently needs more work. Thincat (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted by User:Acroterion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truth about truman school[edit]

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

Besides that this is a book report that would need to be replaced with encyclopedic content, is this book notable? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandi Perkins[edit]

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

Fancy meeting me here, huh? I rarely ever want to see articles deleted, but one thing that might send me here, even for a musician, is blatant promotional content. This isn't blatant, but I think it is, in the end, promotional, without further redeeming qualities.

This musician had a deal with Sony and recorded an album, which was shelved, and she was dropped from the roster. It received almost no notice aside from garnering her an Allmusic profile (which is how I heard of her; I am a frequent reader). She later formed a band, called Of Verona, which might pass muster under WP:MUSIC, but I am now convinced Perkins is not notable in her own right. There is one solid source - the Allmusic profile - which is usually enough to sell me on any musician, but I'm not aware of anything else substantial; most of the footnotes in this article don't lead to third-party references.

The author of this article, User:Arider88, and I, are virtually the only substantial editors of this article (aside from IP edits, which, I am convinced, are actually logged-out edits of Arider). Early in this page's history (nearly five years ago!), I found the page and tried to shepherd it. A particular flashpoint turned out to be the inclusion of Perkins's earliest two EPs, which Arider88 removed repeatedly, despite the fact that the only reliable source we had, AMG, included them. Years of tendentious editing over these EPs continued; Arider, or an IP, would remove them, usually without comment, and I would restore them since they were about the only solidly referenced information the page had.

The stubbornness with which this edit war has been carried out makes me believe Arider88 is part of Perkins's management team, and that they are of the opinion this "early work" is perhaps damaging to her public image in some way. This user's edits exclusively concern three musicians - Dillon Pace (an article Arider wrote which was deleted via AfD for lack of notability), Of Verona (Perkins's band), and Perkins herself. I believe this article is being used exclusively as a promotional tool for Perkins - and that would not bring me to AfD on its own, as I see notable musicians with puff-bios all the time. (Much of what I do on Wiki is convince people that certain musicians are still worthy of inclusion even if their pages are being puppetteered by management teams.) However, here I think we have a promotional page, written by a COI editor, about a musician whom I cannot defend as meeting WP:MUSIC on her own. If anyone can bring forth sources or further information that would allow us to stake a claim on WP:MUSIC that I'm not seeing, I'd be happy to see the page stay. My sense is that the claims about songwriting might be an inroad, as there is an impressive list of "collaborators" on the page, but I don't know what these collaborations consist of, and her publishing deal began this year, so I'm not holding out much hope. Chubbles (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/merge to Of Verona. In addition to the Allmusic bio, I found coverage from Billboard, NBC, Chico Enterprise Record, The Music Box (not sure this would be considered a reliable source) and Starpulse (again not sure if this is reliable and it looks like a reprinted press release). --Michig (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's enough for me! Withdraw Nomination. Chubbles (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no prejudice agianst recreation once there are multiple reliable sources to establish notability. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OSVehicle - Tabby[edit]

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

WP:Notability? Only one independent source via Google (as long as you turn on the Verbatim option; otherwise, Google returns everything with osCAR as well): http://www.riders-online.it/?p=10821. Is this sufficient? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting concept but no real secondary coverage out there, at least for now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sources. PR fluff. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Almost WP:TOOSOON but notability appears to be established by a couple external links included in the article: [43] and [44]. ~KvnG 17:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first reference is from a catalog of every exhibitor at the fair, with content that exhibitors probably provide themselves, so it doesn't confer notability. So, so far, there's just the one WP:RS reference. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 20:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darren McKenna[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has been included in a Multi AfD in 2008.. WP:Articles for deletion/Neil Gallagher (footballer)

Delete - per nom. Fenix down (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maximiliano Arellano[edit]

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

I found this article by clicking "Random article". I do not think that it satisfies the notability criteria on Wikipedia. Further, nothing more has been written about the subject of the article since 2006 that I can find. ירק (talk)

Delete Unless there actually is anything notable to include in the article. Human.v2.0 (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete-- the only source is a news bulletin which summarizes this story in a caption. I can't see any other coverage in the source, meaning our only source does not discuss the person in sufficient depth. Lesion (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources *.mx seem to point back to the 2006 story. No real updates since. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has done nothing notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Corcoran[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage JMHamo (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, same rationale as all the other Irish footballers nominated recently. Fenix down (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny Perth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has been included in a Multi AfD in 2008.. WP:Articles for deletion/Neil Gallagher (footballer)

Delete - per nom. No indication that there has been any change in notability since the previous AfD. Fenix down (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Lloyd, A (September 2013). "Patchy 'coherence': using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)". Implement Sci. 8 (1): Epud ahead of publication. PMID 24006959. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[1] Lloyd, A (September 2013). "Patchy 'coherence': using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)". Implement Sci. 8 (1): Epud ahead of publication. PMID 24006959. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[1]