< 5 December	7 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yaesu VX. Merged as recommended by discussion and by common practice in these cases. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu VX-2R[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable product. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is established through several references, including reviews in publications such as QST, CQ Amateur Radio and online sources. Some of the articles are newer and need additional references, but these should be forthcoming. While notability to the general public may be low, these are products produced for sale internationally, and are clearly notable within the subject area of amateur radio. Perhaps ((refimprove)) would be more appropriate. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article currently stands, with only one independent reference, it fails WP:GNG. We also need to draw a line in the sand with respect to including product article in WP. WP:PRODUCT is of some use but I feel that the inclusion of product articles needs tighter control in a similar fashion to biographical article. I we don't WP will be flooded with product advertising dressed up as articles, and everyone out there will create an article on their favourite product. It would be a nightmare to maintain. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, non-notable product. Wikipedia is not a directory. Agree completely with Alan, we've got to draw a line and without significant coverage in multiple 3rd party sources, these articles fall below that line. RadioFan (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional references -- I have gone through the articles and added additional references. While researching, I found a book-length treatment of these radios in the Japanese book VXシリーズ遊び方ガイド ("VX Series Guide") [1]. Book-length treatment of a subject is the gold standard in notability. In addition, I added references to several ham radio publications such as QST (US), CQ Amateur Radio (US), CQ ham radio (Japan), and Amateurfunk (Germany). All of the articles now have multiple references to independent, verifiable, third party reliable sources. I would also like to point out that the VX-7R and VX-8R have corresponding German wiki articles. I think this clearly establishes notability. Please reconsider your above recommendations to delete. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't consider it to be "significant" coverage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Four major monthly magazines and a book is not significant? What would be significant? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe you haven't seen all the references from all the articles, but we're talking about a book plus 21 articles in four publications across three languages. I fail to see how that is insignificant. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is insignificant if you compare it to, say an iPad or an IBM PC. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - We would end up with a very boring and incomplete encyclopedia if only subjects as popular as the iPad and IBM PC were allowed to have articles written about them. Thankfully, policy doesn't support that idea. If we look at WP:GNG #1, quoting, with my emphasis: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article... 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." So, lets review. "Significant coverage" is about the detail of coverage. The threshold is that detail must be sufficient to prevent original research. This statement does not compare coverage to that of other subjects. Popularity or cultural significance is not cited as relevant to the concept of "significant coverage". If you care to review some of the references that are online, [2] [3] [4] [5], you will find that the detail level is significant and technical. The radios in question are the main topic of the articles (and book), which means that the coverage is not "trivial" according to the above policy (and footnote 1 on WP:GNG). Please recognize that the cited references meet all policy requirements for notabiliy and withdraw your deletion request. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Yaesu VX per references above. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge as the reasonable way of handling these, and all similar cases of individual products--except the unusually very notable ones. DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Yaesu VX per Stuartyeates. I'd leave redirects from the individual product pages to the main article though. And as a comment, I see the arguments of Alan Liefting as very scary... I hope that his views don't reflect a trend in consensus shift. Not trying to make this a personal attack, but his position seems to be that niche products can not be notable, regardless of how much coverage they get. Sure amateur radio is a niche hobby, and ham radio topics in general don't get a whole lot of coverage in "mainstream" publications, but QST is the journal of the ARRL, and CQ is a (relative to the audience) high circulation publication with editorial oversight. ChrisRuvolo's work to get sources is great work, and clearly establishes notability, at least according to the current GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Per the above. Zlqchn (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All to Yaesu VX per Stuartyeates , as suggested.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. It seems obvious that this passes WP:BAND criterion #5, reliable source coverage has been identified, therefore I don't anticipate any further arguments for deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Food[edit]

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

I originally deleted this article in response to a WP:CSD#A7 tag placed on it, after which I noticed that the article is several years old with a long history. The topic doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND criteria for inclusion, and generally "mix albums" are as inherently non-notable as those who produce them. However, because of its history, I have restored the article and proposed it here for proper review. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as the original CSD nominator, I think this clearly does not meet BAND. The page has no refs to RS, and I tried to search for them, but the name of course shows up in a billion non related contexts. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that one of the WP:BAND criteria concerns having two albums on a notable record label. Of the labels shown in the article, I know Rough Trade is notable, not sure about the other. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on the basis that both Rough Trade and Ninja Tune are notable labels that DJ Food has released an album on. I agree with Amatulic that Rough Trade is notable. WP:BAND says "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." This requires more than the notability for Ninja Tune to have a wiki article - they must have many notable performers. I have no idea of the calibre of their lineup - but it is extensive, and 30-40 acts apparently have enough notability to have their own page here. On the untested assumption that this meets WP:Band, then, I suggest a 'keep'. Colon el Tom 03:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm utterly mystified why anyone would think A7 was appropriate here, and even bringing it to AFD seems odd. This started as a side project of Coldcut (Matt Black and Jonathan More) with a few like-minded friends, with many albums released on Ninja Tunes, which is easily enough to pass criterion 5 of WP:BAND. If that wasn't enough, there is plenty of coverage of DJ Food from a variety of sources, e.g. Allmusic (see reviews also), Clash, NME, Chartattack, metro.cz, Les Inrocks, CMJ New Music Monthly, SPIN.--Michig (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the basis that the page has been here for a long time, that the artist has released 9 albums on a notable record label, Ninja Tune being one of the most respected electronica labels in the world, with a roster of artists including 3 mercury prize nominees and one winner, which easily passes the criteria for WP:BAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorfulthrowup (talk • contribs) 09:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the lede needs to explain what the topic is, currently it doesn't appear to. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2011 (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. Existence ≠ notability. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Communist Current[edit]

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

The ICC is a sect that is definitely not notable under wikipedia policy. Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little substantial information other than those on its website. (Google News search) HurricaneFan 25 23:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and total lack of substantial RS. I expect we will be denounced as greedy capitalist pigs because of this... Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically using Wikipedia as web hosting. Shii (tock) 01:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long-standing group with a distinct position, well known for their interventions in print and in meetings. Some immediate links: discussion in Encyclopedia of British and Irish political organizations, The Russian Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921: an annotated bibliography, plus snippet view in Paul Mercer's "Directory of British political organisations 1994". AllyD (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These seem like offhand references and not something that established notability or could be turned into an informative article Shii (tock) 11:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Offhand" is maybe in the eye of the beholder, but I don't see the first of these, the "Encyclopedia of British and Irish political organizations" as offhand; it is a specific encyclopaedic section on World Revolution/ICC. AllyD (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Internationalist Communist Current is the name adopted by the Internationalist Communist Party after it joined the Internationalist Communist Organisation in 1991, which was later re-named the Workers' Party, and was itself absorbed into the Independent Workers' Party in 2008. So we have lots of parties and factions and lots of articles without any sourcing. It seems some work is need on all these articles. I would suggest however that merging the article would be more appropriate. TFD (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course the Trotskyist groups mentioned above are quite distinct from the Damenist Internationalist Communist Party (Battaglia Comunista). Likewise a group calling itself the Internationalist Communist Organisation was set up in London with four members in the 1980s and involved an ex-member of the International Communist Current and even the Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain. I feel there has been a problem in naming conventions here, and that it would have been helpful to use th French names of French groups rather than translating them into English. I always liked the Bordighist convention of adding the name of the central organ of the group, or even the city in which they were headquarter when the International Communist Party split into 72 jarrying sects. All these groups (with the exception of the Lonodn based Internationalist Communist Organisation are notable. However I do think that Shii's point should be addressed, perhaps by referencing some of the critiques of the Communist Bulletin Group which can be found here.Leutha (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Communist Bulletin Group was a small left communist organisation based in Scotland." Wouldn't that essentially be an inside source and not a major one? I'm still concerned that there are no serious sources documenting the notability of this group. Shii (tock) 03:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is no page for Internationalist Persepective which was originally the External Faction of the ICC before deciding that the problem with the ICC was not merely organisational but programmatic. Is it that we need sources outside the microcosm of Left Communism, or would that the CBG is too close to the ICC compared to say Théorie Communiste. It is perhaps reasonable to expect only left communists to discuss left communism just as only particle physicists discuss particle physics? or maybe the odd applied mathematician!Leutha (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or selectively merge into a list of similar groups or other parent article. I see too little third party coverage in the article to justify a separate article, but perhaps such groups are, like minor fictional characters, best covered in the context of a broader article. Sandstein 12:15, 15 December 2011 (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 speedily deleted (G7: author request) by Fastily. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Senquiz[edit]

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

No indication of notability, tagged as such since August 2011. I searched databases and open web and found no significant coverage. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are many, many people with black belts who teach and compete. I am not sure why this person is more notable than the rest of them, and my search didn't uncover any sources that would be helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. There also appears to be copyright violations from [6]. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article makes no assertion or indication of notability that is readily apparent to me. In a brief search for sources, I have not yet found any reliable sources supporting notability. Janggeom (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no indication of notability (WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE) and the article lacks good sources. Astudent0 (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2011 (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. m.o.p 05:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BashBurn[edit]

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

I found this, but I don't consider it significant coverage. Even if it was significant coverage, there needs to be multiple sources. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom. There nothing out there that rises above the trivial, hardly surprising given the trivial nature of a shell script to burn discs. Yawn. Msnicki (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2011 (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. AFD is not cleanup, even the nominator appears to believe this article can be improved to an acceptable standard. There is no deadline, if it can be improved, we keep it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death Is a Bitch[edit]

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

All plot except for the mention of one review. Not a notable episode JDDJS (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you're going to nominate this episode, why not almost every other episode as well? The one's directly adjacent to this one are in similar condition, for example. DP76764 (Talk) 22:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but I don't know how to combine multiple AFDs into one. If you know how to, feel free to do so. And by almost every other episode, I assume you're only talking about the ones from this season, as the ones from the latter seasons are actually in very good shape with most of them being Good Articles or at least B-Class. JDDJS (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually do any deleting, so have no idea how to do that. In terms of this delete, I'd actually prefer some reference improvement and keeping of the article(s) over deletion. DP76764 (Talk) 23:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer improvement too, but it is rare for editors who have the skill and time to make good episode articles to work on the episodes from the early seasons. JDDJS (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually remember this being quite a notable episode. It was a rare sighting of Norm MacDonald and quite a celebrity guest star for the show's obscure first run. --Qwerty0 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say anything about that in the article. Feel free to add it. JDDJS (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to the earlier statement made that it is "rare for editors who have the skill and time to make good episode articles to work on the episodes from the early seasons." The article can be easilly improved, even by yourself. I will attempt to improve the article as well. Gage (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So prove me wrong and improve it. If you do, I'll gladly close this AFD. I would love to improve the article myself, but I know that I am not a very good writer. JDDJS (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article that needs to be improved is not an excuse for deletion. 08:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.248.99 (talk)
Redirect to Family Guy (season 2) if the article can't be kept. ----DanTD (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2011 (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 speedily deleted as per author's request. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garret Kramer[edit]

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

Non no0table; being quotes in interviews shows a desire for promotion, not notability, and there are no other third party sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At first glance, the list of references looked impressive, but all of them were either primary, unrelated, or trivial. Nothing here to establish notability. As for the references I found on Google News, none of the Google summaries sound promising. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased delete the article! Steveswei 00:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswei (talk • contribs)

Delete As stated above, the references are very weak. Notability is not achieved. Stormbay (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - User:Steveswei, the only substantive author of the article, has requested deletion both here and on his talk page. This meets a speedy delete criteria. I'm not on a machine where I can easily mark a page for speedy deletion; could someone else take care of this? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2011 (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. causa sui (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mounteer[edit]

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

This seems to be a thorough piece of research listing holders of an extremely rare surname, none of whom are themselves notable. It doesn't seem to have any claim as a wikipedia article, and is an orphan. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Canadian Brigadeer General Donald Edwin Mounteer, if sourced, meets WikiProject Military history/Notability guide #3: 'Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or' ; none of the others seem notable from the information in the article. Dru of Id (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- Notable Canadian article but needs more improvement. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was a Brigadier General Donald Mounteer, but all I could find for him is a single barebones death notice, hardly enough to build an article around. The military history guideline says that "an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" if he "held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer", but that doesn't seem to be the case here. As Dru has noted, none of the others are notable.Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. I am leaning toward Delete, but recommend that the article be kept for now. If a few Mounteers are notable enough to have articles written about them, this can be used as a quasi-disambiguation page, for lack of a better term to describe it. If the general was notable, then someone could convert this into an article on him.DCItalk 03:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is hardly anything here but genealogical data, and apparently no individual with this surname is the subject of a Wikipedia article yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable list of trivia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sourced infobox information about the name itself, the article now lists several quasi-notable people, including a member of a band that has its own article (Jules Mounteer of Captain Tractor). Dcoetzee 06:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2011 (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 speedily deleted per A10 by Tom Morris (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to Stop Global Warming[edit]

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

A "How To" essay, see WP:NOTHOWTO -- Crowsnest (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10. Climate change mitigation covers the subject in much more detail and in a way that fits Wikipedia's writing guidelines. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L'Auberge (restaurant)[edit]

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

Long-defunct restaurant, only incidental mentions in articles about non-notable chef and in directories. Fails WP:ORG. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Michelin Stars and multiple reliable sources not count towards notability? --86.40.106.131 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What only matters is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. These are all Dutch-language publications, and I have no idea if they are reliable. Even assuming that, none of the coverage is significant. All the articles are on the chef. Michelin stars alone do not convey notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Michelin stars convey notability! What better measure is there for a restaurant? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a Dutch restaurant will mainly or even only be mentioned in Dutch sources. WP:NOENG clearly allows RS in other languagues. And as said by others a Michelin Star let alone two is a pretty good indicator of notability. The Michelin Guide is a RS, being awarded one or more stars by them is comparable to winning an Academy Award by an movie actor. Also notability is not temporary, so disestablishment doesn't preclude it from inclusion. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - Surely a Michelin star recipient is notable from a historical perspective, even if defunct. Restaurants come and go. Should articles about them on Wikipedia be removed accordingly? Not sure what criteria for notability should apply if this is not sufficient. RashersTierney (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it otherwise fails WP:CORP? I don't think so. I scoured the notability criteria and WP:OUTCOMES, and I could find no justification for that position, which I know has been expressed. If that was so, what more could we say about this or any such restaurant? This is a tiny article by virtue of the fact that it has had no coverage. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The House (restaurant) is a Michelin starred restaurant that was kept because of its michelin stars.... Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the participants in that discussion state:

Meets the general notability guideline, per the sources already provided and the Michelin rating

The references provided are sufficient to establish notability. We ought to have an article about every restaurant with a Michelin rating, rather than deleting this article

Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is outside my usual area but I have asked for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink. RashersTierney (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I wish you could have phrased your post[7] more neutrally, to conform with WP:CANVASS. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite generous with your accusations of canvassing. Asking a question or just telling somebody "that he really has nominated the article" is not canassing, unless you use WP:ABF. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made up my mind on this issue. There was no canvassing. Please strike the implication that there was. RashersTierney (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "I would be amazed if a Michelin star recipient was not of itself notable, but I may be mistaken." That's not neutral language. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your trenchant position, you should be a bit more circumspect in making accusations of canvassing. I certainly will be amazed if responses indicate no inherent notability in these awards, but I have no preference one way or the other. RashersTierney (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trenchant? Yes, I suppose so. Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (as author) Revenge nomination. The restaurant was awarded two Michelin stars at the time she went bankrupt. Notability tag appeared already 1 minute after publishing the article. Article does satisfy WP:ORG as it states in the footnotes Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORG requires deep coverage: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." All we have is a very brief, incomplete stub, and evidently that's all there ever will be. This restaurant was alive for only a brief period of time. Were there an article on the chef, this could be merged into the article on him. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read the footnotes of WP:ORG, my friend. Mentioning in the MIchelin Guide alone is enough for notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ see below All references count only as trivial. The Michelin guide is a directory and nothing more. However, two of the sources may warrant an article on the chef, Emmanuel Mertens. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Create an article on Emmanuel Mertens and redirect this one there. On second thought, I believe that's the most sensible solution. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability for this restaurant is demonstrated by the independent reliable sources, that provide significant coverage about the subject (in this case, the two Volkskrant articles). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Volkstrant articles were not about the restaurant, but about the chef. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One article has about 10 paragraphs directly about the restaurant, the other articles main subject is the kitchen of the restaurant. I think we can both agree that saying The kitchen of restaurant L'Auberge is notable, but the restaurant itself is not, is beyond silly. That is significant coverage by any measure. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants generally get Michelin stars based on the qualities of the head chef (apart from things like presentation). I remember the restaurant Parkheuvel in my home town Rotterdam went from 3 (!) to 1 star after the chef left. So that's why media coverage will largely go about the chef just like there were many news articles about Apple which mainly covered Steve Jobs. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps there should be an article on the chef. The articles all focus on him. Apple is independently notable, but this restaurant clearly is not. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that Restaurant Gordon Ramsay is notable? You could also argue that it's only famous because it is owned by a famous chef. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Martijn Hoekstra; and as to the broader question, yes, a two-star Michelin rating should certainly be taken as a very strong indicium of notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - A Micheline star is simply a review, and it is standard practice within the Food and Drink project that reviews by themselves do not connote notability regardless of the source of the review. This includes reliable sources such as the New York Times, Esquire, and other well-known publications, including the Micheline guide. To connote notability of a restaurant you must have actual articles about the operation. So no matter how many stars the restaurant received in Micheline, it would not be notable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A Michelin star is simply a review? Don't be ridiculous. Michelin stars are the world's top awards for restaurants. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You manage to consistently misspell the name Michelin. Which might indicate (nothing personal) that you don't know what you are talking about. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have only been working in the hospitality field for the past 30 years in several different restaurants from fast food to fine dining; my father-in-law was a food chemist for the US DOD, my wife went to Newbury College for culinary arts and my brother to New England Culinary Institute as a chef. I have been immersed, lived and operated in this field for longer than some commentators have been alive, so I have a good idea what I am talking about. Despite what you think it is, Michelin is at its root a travel guide just like those published by Fodor's, the AAA and the CAA etc. While it is held in high regard and restauranteurs strive to get good ranking from it, it is still a review. It publishes the subjective opinion of its reviewers and not hard facts about the restaurant in question as required by WP:Note. It is the same thing as reviews by famous food critics in noted publications such as the New York Times, and it is no different - it does establish notability because of its subjective nature.
      Comparing it to an Academy Award is spurious in nature because Michelin stars are significantly different in nature; Academy Awards are peer awards from people who work in the film industry. It is the people who work in the field (directors for directors, actors for actors etc) recognizing their peers' best work in the specific field in which they work. Analogues to them would be the Emmy Awards, the Grammy Awards, the Tony Awards or even the Clio Awards. Other similar awards exist in the architecture, publishing and culinary fields. The Nobel Prize award was created by an explosives manufacturer who wanted to use his fortune to improve humanity as a whole and established a foundation to seek out the very best of mankind. One such analogue is the James Beard Foundation, where an individual sought to use his legacy to recognize the best in the culinary field. Michelin is a tire company that publishes travel guides as part of their business of selling tires, in the hope you will drive to these locations and in the process wear out your tires and buy more tires from them. They also rate campgrounds and tourist attractions and other similar things.
      In regards to my typo (a result of dyslexia and not ignorance), may I remind you to comment on the subject and not the commentator. For what its worth I have no opinion about the subject, I was just stating the guidelines used by WP:Food to help determine notability of restaurants. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - My apologies then. It was late yesterday and I looked at your userpage and found a userbox This user eats at Burger King so that's why that slipped out. I also sometimes (not often) eat at Burger King but you can often get a good deal at a nicer restaurant for not much more. The Michelin guide started as a guide for drivers listing all the places where they could buy petrol/gas and get their cars fixed, as in the earliest days of motoring there were no filling stations and not many garages. They later thought it was a good idea to also list restaurants so people knew where they could find something good to eat along the road. That's how a tire company became famous for restaurant reviews. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 13:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - A moment's study of Jeremy's talk page will show that he makes something of a specialism of fine dining experiences. A "Micheline" incidentally is something quite different, but still distinctively French. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you 100% sure that ad hominem comments about persons you disagree with are going to persuade the closing administrator? I'm not so sure. But if you're convinced of that, fire away. So far, no one has shown any evidence that this restaurant has received so much as a single article on itself, as opposed to the non-notable chef. Instead the defenders of this article are relying on a footnote in the notability guidelines, which I don't believe commits Wikipedia to retaining articles on restaurants otherwise non-notable. Now, feel free to respond by telling me to go back to my hamburgers. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where to begin? First of all, a two-star listing in the Michelin Guide creates a very strong presumption though not conclusive proof, of notability. In all honesty, one Michelin star does so in my opinion. It would be astounding to think that a two star Michelin restaurant had not received significant coverage in reliable sources, whether or not such coverage from the 1980s and 1990s is readily available online in 2011. One editor says "the Michelin guide is a directory and nothing more". This is like saying that the Academy Awards are prizes that Hollywood types give each other and nothing more. Or, the Nobel Prize is just another award for scientists and nothing more. Or the Pulitzer Prize is just another award for writers, and nothing more. The fact is that the Michelin Guide is indisputably the most authoritative reliable source for the notability of fine dining establishments in the world, and only a few hundred restaurants worldwide are rated two stars each year. Only 13 in Paris this year, and only six in Northern California, where I live. Another editor says that this restaurant "was alive for only a brief period of time" when the article states that it held one or two Michelin stars for a period of fifteen years, or significantly longer than Wikipedia itself has existed. That same editor claims to be unable to evaluate the reliability of de Volkskrant although that publication has an article here on English Wikipedia that verifies that it has been publishing since 1919 and is the third largest circulation newspaper in the Netherlands. There isn't the slightest hint that this newspaper is unreliable. The fact that sources are in Dutch is in no way a negative, as this is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. The argument has been advanced that an article that gives significant coverage to a restaurant does not establish notability if it also discusses the restaurant's chef in detail. In response, I will say only that a single in-depth article can be used to establish the notability of two or more topics. The articles in de Volkskrant allude to in-depth coverage in other publications: "The Dutch restaurant guide Lekker called L'Auberge in late 1996, two months after the opening 'the best restaurant in the Netherlands'." (Google translate). So, we have the Michelin Guide reviewing the restaurant for 15 years in a row, and two in-depth articles in a major Dutch newspaper, plus a report that a Dutch restaurant guide called it the best restaurant in the country. I am truly mystified by this nomination. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most likely a revenge nomination, having no clue about fine dining and a strong pro-American bias that him forces to nominate articles with sources he can not read. ehm, and what about Google Translate, mate? Too difficult? And a refusal to admit mistakes. :-) Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I read the articles in Google Translate. That's how I learned that this restaurant had only received incidental coverage. I haven't found a single article on the restaurant itself, not a single review. Have you? ScottyBerg (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The restaurant existed mainly in the pre-public internet era. The first Dutch ISP which offered public internet began operating in 1993, the first newspaper sites began in 1994. Since the restaurant closed in 1999 and the chef left the year before that gives an online coverage era of 4/5 years. And Dutch newspapers don't put all their articles online, especially in the early years of the internet they put only a few on their site. So the lack of a review online does not mean that the restaurant was never reviewed by a major source. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 14:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - So if we have no information on a restaurant, not even its address, not a single article can be found about it, just the fact that it got a star in Michelin, it warrants a separate article in Wikipedia? That's preposterous. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the adres is still known, here it is (on an outdated site). Besides there are several articles who mentioned we have two from De Volkskrant and one from De Telegraaf. You seem to want an article about the restaurant which doesn't mention the chef, that is impossible because the head chef is the core of a fine dining restaurant, Michelin star winning or not. The articles referenced on the Fleur de Lys restaurant mentioned in this AfD also go on for several paragraphs about the chef. There could be some more information about the food they served, the entourage etc, but unless you go to the archive rooms of several Dutch newspapers (they still haven't digitized everything so you'll probably have to search on microfilms) it's hard to come by that information. Historical subjects (which this is even if it is recent history) can't be expected to be overly detailed. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - No, what I think is needed is coverage of the restaurant itself, and not speculation that such coverage may exist somewhere. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Sparthorse (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all chill Don't speculate about ScottyBerg's or Jeremy's gastronomic tastes. I've eaten at Lumière and Fleur de Lys (lemme guess no Michelin stars between them?), but last Sunday at 6:30am I was standing in line with crackheads getting my Egg McMuffin - doesn't prove nothing. The process is working fine, no animals will be harmed in the closing of this AfD. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Since I encountered this particular clique of editors, I've been insulted "six ways from Sunday." But that doesn't make an article about a totally obscure restaurant, one that died swiftly after receiving almost no attention, even the slightest bit notable. I am struck, however, by the tactics employed by some editors on this page. Since I've never disclosed any gastronomic preferences except a fondness for pumpkin pie, which I only disclosed about a half hour ago, I'm unclear as to where this intelligence on my dining experiences come from. In any event, I doubt that the closing administrator will be swayed, but I guess anything's possible. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be pleased to know, LoveUxoxo, that Fleur de Lys has a Michelin star for 2011. Accordingly, I have removed the notability tags from that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That restaurant gets mentioned about 4 times every year in the San Francisco Chronicle, I'm sure that its notability shouldn't be in doubt. LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have a clear memory of in-depth coverage of that place well over 35 years ago, shortly after I moved to San Francisco. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for speedy close as keep It is clear that an overwhelming majority here thinks that Michelin starred restaurants are plain notable. The nominator ignores the WP:ORG-policy, that he brings in as argument for deletion. WP:ORG states in his foornotes: Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants. But nominator refuses to accept that without usefull reason. This discussion is becoming more and more a joke a should be relieved of its misery by a speedy close as keep. Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD discussions are not votes, and this AfD has been tarnished by improper canvassing at the food project and personal attacks. There is a good-faith dispute over the notability of this article, which in the final analysis is a perma-stub based on trivial coverage about a long-vanished restaurant established by a non-notable chef. It's absurd to argue that a listing in a guidebook is sufficient to establish the notability of a restaurant that did not even leave a lasting impression during its brief existence. User:Jerem43, a food services professional, pointed out the guidelines used by the food project to determine notability, and was viciously attacked for it. I'm not surprised that there hasn't been more participation by editors favoring deletion of this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could it not be that you three are the only ones who consider a Michelin starred restaurant not notable? Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, this is not a numerical vote. A Michelin star is one of the factors that can be taken into account in establishing notability. A rigid "Michelin star=notability' standard makes no sense. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why not? One Michelin star, not to mention two or three, is widely regarded as the summum a restaurant can reach. A recognition of the supreme quality in food served. Michelin Guide should be interesting reading for you. The Guide is already considered notable. Why resist the obvious? Take a look at Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants and see a list of more then 200 Michelin starred restaurants. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Because as I just pointed out above, it means that we could have articles on restaurants containing no information other than that they have received a Michelin star, since notability is permanent and many restaurants have vanished without a trace and have little or no information available about them at present. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That is true, but thise articles will not be of my hand :-) But the notability guidelines approve such short, nothing telling articles as long as it is backed up with reliable independent sources, like the Michelin Guide. It would be perfectly okay when I write an article about the restaurant "Au Coin des Bons Enfants" in Maastricht and state that they had one Michelin star in the period 1958-1980 and nothing more, as long as I properly source it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would reiterate Cullen's statement that "a two-star listing in the Michelin Guide creates a very strong presumption though not conclusive proof, of notability", which echoes the statement in WP:ORG quoted above. It's reasonable to start with that assumption, but that isn't an automatic article on WP for every Michelin two-star restaurant (though, considering chefs kill themselves when they lose a star, I'd expect enough WP:RS coverage generated from Michelin's rankings to easily prove WP:N). Admitting you like pumpkin pie though is fairly close to trolling, and may require administrator intervention. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Many passing mentions, as here, are not enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per basic common sense. Do we really want Wikipedia to be made a laughing stock where porn actors nominatated for a couple of AVN awards, and footballers who have appeared as last-minute substitutes in League 2, have articles but not Michelin-starred restaurants? Have we lost all perspective on what constitutes notability in the real world? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~::More people have fapped to Angel Dark than ever ate at L'Auberge FWIW. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm not sure you're going to find a WP:RS for that first figure; but there are WP:RS figures for the audiences at League 2 grounds which are going to clearly going to out-rank L'Auberge. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go there. More people have heard about Paris Hilton than about Robert Noyce, so Noyce is a less important figure in world history than Hilton? S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Michelin stars provide strong evidence of notability, as do the newspaper articles. Given the period that the restaurant flourished, finding online sources may be difficult but the online sources that we do have a are sufficient of themselves. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Relying on the imperfect Google Translate I agree that the sources focus more on chef Emmanuel Mertens than L'Auberge but there are enough specific references to L'Auberge I think to keep this article and hope for further expansion. We shouldn't give a free pass based on Michelin stars, but the benefit of doubt in a close case is OK by me. LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We judge notability according to notability in the RW, not in our own fancies. The world of restaurants regards the Michelin stars as the highest honors, and even a one star restaurant is intrinsically and automatically notable, and nothing else need be shown. More should always be shown, and always can be, because everywhere these restaurants generate multiple reviews and discussions. "A Michelin star is only a review" shows no attention to proportion: The phrasing use is always "awarded" a star, and these are th awards of highest international prestige. These awards do have a considerable degree of ethnocentrism, and it is certainly very possible for other restaurants to be notable also. For some of the nay-sayers above, they ask so much that I think they'd consider nothing notable. When we say notability is not popularity, we mean that popularity is not required for notability . DGG ( talk ) 10:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The weight to be given the Michelin ratings intrigued me, so I did some research. It appears that being Michelin-rated has regularly carried the day at AfD many times before since 2005, see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House (restaurant) (July 2011); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafferano (May 2010 - kept as no consensus due to lack of discussion, no delete votes except nom); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagatelle restaurant (October 2008); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Laundry (April 2008 - here you may pause and wonder who the hell in their right mind would nominate that one); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masa (restaurant) (July 2007); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Bec Fin (December 2005); see also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_20#Michelin-starred_restaurants (June 2009); Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_56#Restaurant_notability_proposed_guideline and Wikipedia talk:Notability (restaurants) (October 2008). So its fair to say that Michelin stars are strong evidence of notability, and has been a de facto indicaton of notability in practice.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michelin stars and sources. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:48, 14 December 2011 (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. Favonian (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Price (games programmer)[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion under WP:BLP1E, per request by 137.43.188.78 (talk) Ludwigs2 20:57, 6 December 2011 (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) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, thanks to Ludwigs2 for nominating for me. The only RS that I can find about this is about a single issue re the plagiarism. Seems like a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. 93.107.70.26 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cause it is a game designer,he created a game he should have an article.!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.49.191 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - That's not a valid reason, that's just a desciption of the person. Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Depends on the game, I would think. But in this case, I agree. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree. I merely said that because the IP failed to expand their stance beyond "a game". Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates WP:BLP1E Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Don't sign my comments sinebot will do it,he is a great hacker,and like Tailsman67 told me,you are not screwing this page up like you did The Nazo Unleashed trilogy,that was a good movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.49.191 (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2011‎
- Comment The above IP has claimed "Keep" twice now, for the record. Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. Stormbay (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Nom - only notable for one (not very notable) event. Let the poor guy get on with his life.--Ludwigs2 02:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – As well as off my inability to find anything on him, that just because you create a video game doesn't mean you get your own separate article. However, the larger problem is the rather blaring BLP concerns; the article is nothing but about a rather insignificant incident back in the 1980s in which some people are using Wikipedia to continue to bash on the person responsible. –MuZemike 02:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with MuZemike, this article is a BLP mess and even if notability were established (which I don't think it has been at present, considering both WP:N and WP:BLP1E) a blank page would be a better starting point than the article as it presently stands. EdChem (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see clear notability here, and - as per BLP1E - we're in no position to have this article if we can't source it properly. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is important,he did something notable. See below
- Comment - Above IP's argument is not only invalid, as it doesn't describe any sort of reasoning why, but is suspected to be a sock puppet of the IP above who tried to claim "keep" twice earlier in the discussion. (Not just because of this comment, but because of majority of their other edits.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Also reverts even after warnings. Calabe1992 22:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I'm not that guy,you have no proof

Yes you are; don't lie to us.
He did not do anything remotely notable; you only want the article kept so that you can continue your harassment campaign against Price.

–MuZemike 01:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have no proof;hunches are bunches of bs.
This had an article that was deleted 10 years ago.

It doesn't matter who you are, you still haven't given a good reason to keep the album. You need to take a different approach, like providing reliable sources or pointing to notability guideline that it passes to describe why it is a notable article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Nearly a dozen IPs editing exactly the same way quacks pretty loudly. Striking this vote as editor has already voted once using IP 98.71.49.191. --McDoob AU 93 18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a limited amount of independent information on the person, but as noted above it's for a single thing. --McDoob AU 93 18:38, 13 December 2011 (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 per sources added, which I'll accept per WP:AGF. However, links are to the Wikipedia material on the media that published the articles cited, and not to these articles themselves. That will eventually need to be fixed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Razor(comics)[edit]

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

Prod contested without explanation. Comic book character with no evidence of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree, does not look like a notable character. JIP | Talk 06:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added sources to the article. There's non-trivial coverage (three paragraphs) on the character in the 500 Great Comicbook Action Heroes book. Additionally, the articles at MTV, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter offer details on a planned movie adaptation. Adding everything together, in my view there's enough verifiable information from independent, reliable sources to support a stand-alone article. Gongshow ^Talk 01:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Gongshow's work. Now it is a well-referenced article, and there's enough to pass GNG.--Cavarrone (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2011 (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. Sandstein 16:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar Money Laundering[edit]

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

Prod contested without explanation. Perhaps the topic is worthy of encyclopedic coverage, but this is a poorly referenced Opinion piece that reads like a news report. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejedice to recreation in encyclopaedic form. There is quite possibly a decent article to be made here, but it has to be fully based on information in reliable sources, and not just be one person's perspective on the subject with the odd reference on specific points. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless there are similar WP articles about money laundering in other offshore financial centers, I see no good reason for having an article like this about Gibraltar. Looks like OR and belongs on a blog. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus) I've closed this as a keep. There does not seem to be clear consensus for either keep, merge or delete, but the majority of editors seem to believe that the content should be maintained (either by keeping the article or merging the content). On that basis it seems sensible to close this as a keep for now. TigerShark (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have recorded "Jingle Bells"[edit]

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

An unreferenced and utterly useless list of recording artists. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Orangeroof (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Policy reason: song covers are notable. Pop songs contain section coverage. This same. Non-policy reason: Grinch troll and hates Christmas. Don't feed trolls. Dalit Llama (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling the nominator a troll is not a very good way of assuming good faith (and isn't likely to get us anywhere productive). Kansan (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I not accusing the nominator of having heart full of unwashed socks. Just nomination. Dalit Llama (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Many Xmas carols and songs have this kind of section too which is a completely unnecessary and indiscriminate list of artists. Christmas comes every year and every year literally hundreds of artists perform the standards of the repertoire, thus these lists are pointless.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – perfectly valid list about an renowned song. The list criteria needs to be strengthened by some means. I'd suggest the artists be limited to those who have a best selling record, won an award, or signed a major record deal. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The more notable ones are already listed in the main article. No need to list every Tom, Dick, and Rudolph. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finite list of notable artists who have recorded the song. It needs sourcing and expanding to include details such as year and the release that each version originally appeared on, but I don't see a good reason to delete. Given that we have an article on the song, this list should exist, either within that article or as a separate list depending on how best to organize the information.--Michig (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created this list primarily to move it out of the main article. I agree that it should be improved with aditional information, but in the meantime it's not doing any harm, and it serves to keep the main article trimmer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Beyond My Ken's rationale. Kansan (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also agree with Beyond My Ken's rationale. LynwoodF (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I must say, I thought a very useful list, I also agree with the above who wish to keep this list. And, in fact, have just added a name to it (that of Edyta Górniak) that was missing.--Tris2000 (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Merge~~ into main article per WP:SONGCOVER which says When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article). I also note WP:V applies, too. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. I have changed my comment from merge to delete for the following reasons. The rationale for creating this page was that it spoiled the main article. By the creation of this list article all that has happened is the problem has been moved. Also checking a number of GA-song articles I note that only prose with references have been used for "other notable versions." The list will never be complete, in any case it would fail WP:NOTDIR. It would be encyclopedic to show the depth and breath of the artists that have recorded the song and that information would be rightfully belong on main page and, irrespective of any adverse comment at this AfD, the WP:SONGCOVER guideline is a logical extension of that concept. Many thanks to the editors who have already made these points below. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- There is too much material in the list to merge it into the main article. Regarding WP:SONGCOVER, the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_8#Cover_Versions had only the consensus of two people, you being one of them. This current discussion has greater participation than that, overridding the obscure localised discussion you cite. WP:SONGCOVER should be revised, since "Never" is too strong a word. Dalit Llama (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC) (Edited for English at the editor's request on my talk page [8] Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

You might like to check WP:SIZE before claiming size matters! I did. The suggested changes were discussed at WP:SONGS several times, the lack of dissenting voices should be interpreted as consent. Also, please note this is the ONLY list of covers-type list that exists at present. All the others have gone, so I claim precedence too. FWIW, If you are not happy with my suggestion of merge, then I am happy to change my comment to delete on the grounds we have an article that doesn't signify any importance (It's the song which is important, not the miscellany of performers) and it is unreferenced, bar one. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand that stance: "Merge, but if it can't be merged, delete." If the material is significant, notable or useful enough to be used inside an article, then it can hardly be so insignficant, unnotable or unuseful that it can't be used in a list article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Separated the list is not significant, notable or useful. In the main article there are very reasonable arguments to include notable versions which are referenced. I can also almost certainly assure you that if the article survives this AfD, another editor will be bold and merge in the future. It's just a shame it wasn't merged rather than AfD in the first place. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the only article/list of its kind, this strikes me as a bit odd. Supposedly "Yesterday" is the most covered song in history. Likewise, I'd hazard that "White Christmas" beats out "Jingle Bells" for number of covers. Neither exists in list form. And yes, yes, I know. Just because we don't have something doesn't mean we should delete this. However, sometimes it is useful to point these things out. It's a bit arbitrary to have one list of covers that basically only encourages listrot. I for one find the WP:SONGCOVER suggestion useful. I just read it for the first time and count me in as a supporter. I don't see any compelling arguments to keep this. In fact, most seem to rest squarely on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOHARM, which is a problem, since neither of these arguments rely on actual policy or guidelines. The problem with lists like this existing within an article is that it is unwieldy and usually discouraged, since we should be writing mainly in prose. But to break it off into a stand-alone list makes little sense. We have categories and I assume we have one detailing covers of this song. Otherwise, we have the main article to discuss the key versions of the song, with sources (hopefully). How can we possibly have a useful list that is neither sourced (you'd find few sources for individual covers of this song aside from the main notable versions) nor with their own articles. So we'd be relying on the notability of the artists to justify the inclusion in this list, which would be a problem as most of these versions of the song are decidedly not notable in and of themselves. That would leave the notable versions which can be sourced well, which would leave a short list that can be merged back into the main article. freshacconci talktalk 22:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge - I note that Yesterday (song) mentions that there are over 1,600 covers. It then provides a sampling of arists, to suggest the variety of musicians who have covered it. I wouldn't be surprised if there are at least 1,600 covers of "Jingle Bells". I would think the list could be trimmed a bit and re-inserted into the main article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per WP:NOTDIR and per freshacconci above. With songs like 'Jingle Bells' that have been recorded by a large number of artists, we simply don't need to list every single one; this list is utterly trivial information. Even if it could somehow be proved that the list is complete, I don't think it would add much value to Wikipedia. What should be done in cases like this one is mentioning a limited sample of the artists who have covered the song in the article itself. We really don't want to encourage the creation of more trivial lists like this one. Robofish (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I take your comments to be equivalent to my "Trim and Merge". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge or convert to Category:Musicians and Musical groups who have recorded Jinglebells. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter is certainly not appropriate. WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION rules out categorising artists by performance. - – Fayenatic (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. You could never cover them all, or even most of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By all means first check that the main article includes any performances for which there is evidence of notability. Yes, this means "trim and merge", but merge and delete rather than redirect, as I doubt that anything deserves merging. If anyone wants to look up this info, "what links here" from the main article should show links to any notable albums that include the song. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To put it another way, "trim, merge and then delete the separate article". The dilemma with this song is that it's sung by nearly everyone, and it's not really associated with any one artist. Contrast with songs like "White Christmas" or "Holly Jolly Christmas" or "Feliz Navidad", which are strongly associated with Bing Crosby, Burl Ives and Jose Feliciano respectively. Countless artists have included "Jingle Bells" on their "Christmas Album", but I'm hard pressed to come up with anyone who actually made a "hit" out of it... except for the various novelty versions such as "Yingle Bells" or "Rusty Chevrolet". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a few Christmas songs that are so commonplace that they appear on 80-90% of all Christmas albums. This is one of them. I'm not saying that's an argument for or against deletion. The same could be said for several other Christmas songs Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly the problem. If it were "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer", you would automatically think of Gene Autry, and perhaps a short list of others. But whose recording of "Jingle Bells", if any, qualifies as a "definitive" version? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gene Autry, yes...though a bazillion others have recorded it (listening to a Bing Crosby version, and Burl Ives comes to mind) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is why a short list within the "Rudolph" article would include Autry (the originator) and Ives (from the annual TV special) and maybe a few others. Like when I hear someone besides Brenda Lee doing "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree", my first thought is, "That's not the 'real' one." As I noted earlier, the only ones that come to mind when I hear "Jingle Bells" are the various satirical versions. Endless Christmas songs begin with "Jingle Bells" even when the actual song is different. "Santa Claus Is Watching You" and "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer", for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to say it, but this article does seem very subjective, and I can think of no way for it to become anything substantial beyond a meager list of names and years. My question is, how notable does a person become before they are listed here? If I record a version and upload it onto youtube now, do I deserve to be on this list? Also what counts as a cover? How different does a cover have to be before it counts as a different song altogether? I'm sorry. This article just seems uterly superfluous and I think would work much better as a subsection in the parent article as "Selected list of...".--Coin945 (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2011 (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. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronized_diving[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Synchronized diving

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

This article has been in existence for about three and a half years yet has only had less than 50 edits and remains an insubstantial stub. I would suggest merging it with the Diving article, but this is unnecessary since the entire content of the stub is already contained within that article, which gives an adequate summary of the Synchroninzed subsection of the sport of Diving. DaveApter (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Diving. I dare say there is scope for expanding this, but the section in the Diving article could stand to be expanded somewhat before it would merit splitting into a separate article.--Michig (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 6. Snotbot t • c » 20:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bold redirect - until there's enough material to warrant its own article, it's a reasonable search term and redirects are cheap.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - This is a recognized Olympic sport. We wouldn't "boldly redirect" Synchronized_swimming to Swimming, would we? Carrite (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronized diving is one discipline of diving as a sport, usually undertaken by divers who also compete in individual diving, not really analagous to synchronized swimming, which is more like artistically treading water. If anyone fancies expanding it, great, but a redirect seems reasonable in the meantime given the minimal, duplicated content.--Michig (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep per Carrite. Not only is it in the Olympics, it's in the Commonwealth Games, the Asian Games, etc. Redirect to diving. The Olympics site has it listed under diving, along with individual 3 and 10m events, not as a separate sport. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to diving. I actually find this citation compelling and Michig's take not unreasonable, at least until such time that the diving page is so massive that it has a sub-page needing to be sprung off. Speed Skating and Figure Skating are treated independently by the Olympics website, as are Alpine Skiing and Cross-Country Skiing. Not so here. Keep vote stricken. Redirect without prejudice. Carrite (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Oh, what a punster I am... Accidental, I assure you.[reply]

as nom, I change my vote to Redirect. It makes sense that a search for this phrase would turn up that article. The comparison with Synchronized swimming is inappropriate - that is a distinct discipline which requires a completely different skill set and performance criteria from the sport of Swimming and is performed by a different set of competitors, whereas this is invariably contested by the same divers using the same skills. DaveApter (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I am afraid that this AFD is a glimpse at that the conversation with the IOC have been like in trying to get this into the Olympic Games. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2011 (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. causa sui (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Gobbo[edit]

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

While Ms Gobbo has received significant media coverage over the last year or so (much of it tabloid or semi-tabloid), it's been almost exclusively in regard to her agreeing to give evidence against organised crime and alleged problems with the protection she received after having done so. As such, this article fails WP:BLP1E. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 6. Snotbot t • c » 20:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This nominatrion asserts Nicola Gobbo is a blp1e. I find this a troubling assertion. I did a google search on Nicola Gobbo, which substantiates she is, in fact, a prominent lawyer, receiving press coverage for her role in a decade of high profile cases. Further, she was sufficiently prominent that The Age sought her opinion on a completely unrelated topic.
Even if, for the sake of argument, she was not someone recognizable enough that she would be sought for her opinion on non-legal topics, even if her only prominent case was the Paul Dale case, her role in that case dates back to 2003. BLP has been a policy since 2007. As time has gone on some contributors have pushed to have it interpreted in a more and more extreme fashion. I suggest that the "one event" clause was meant to apply to genuine passing associations with a prominent event -- not playing a central role that results in almost a decade of press coverage.
Finally, the nomination claims almost all the coverage was "tabloid, or semi-tabloid". I challenge this assertion. The "Australian Broadcasting Corporation" is not a tabloid. I have only read The Age online. If it is an unreliable tabloid I must have missed all the clues, as I have referenced its articles hundreds of times. And so called tabloids run the same wire service stories as high-brow papers. When they do their coverage is just as reliable as that of high-brow papers. Geo Swan (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the nominator's defence the article's description of Gobbo did not accurately reflect her role. I fixed the existing references, added a new reference. The article needs some additional work, and I have added the ((rescue)) tag. The article currently assert she recently rose to prominence. I think her rise to prominence is of long-standing. Further her role is considerably more complex than described in the article -- in ways that require an effort to comply with NPOV and SYNTH to cover properly. Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Was one of the best-known barristers, now front-page news over her drug convictions, co-operation with Police, close connections with crime etc. Article needs a lot of work.--Brandonfarris (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject likely scrapes over the notability threshold but the article as originally written reeked of POV-pushing. At the very least there appeared to be an agenda behind the article creation. Use of the term "taxpayer funds" never suggests a balanced article to me, not to mention the insinuations of criminal activity. Roberta Williams is NOT a reliable source for any claim. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has gotten coverage for more than just one thing. Dream Focus 21:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think her history really qualifies as a 'single event', more like 'recurring character'. Granted some of the media coverage is problematic - I'm aware of the issues relating to the Hun's coverage of things & people related to Carl Williams, and indeed its coverage of Vic policing generally, and that is a reason to be cautious in editing the article, but it's not an argument for deletion. --GenericBob (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- User:121.210.234.34 gave this article an informationectomy and removal of all references. That informationectomy was repeated a day later. Geo Swan (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added back in some of the material and references removed in the informationectomies and referencectomies. Out of respect for the unexplained BLP concerns my restoration is modest. Geo Swan (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2011 (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. causa sui (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology_and_Werner_Erhard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page violates WP:BLP as its intention and effect is to portray a living person in a bad light - disparaging them by the implication of their having a significant link to the Scientology movement, which is not supported by the facts. The only substantive facts - namely that Werner Erhard spent a brief time studying Scientology around 1968, and that allegations have been made that The Church of Scientology were behind attempts to discredit Erhard around 1991 - are already covered adequately in the Werner Erhard article.

CommentThe editor who created the article, and was the principal contributor to it, was sanctioned and stripped of his adminship for exactly this kind of thing Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466#Final_decision - repeated and persistent BLP violations, and the person disparaged in this article was a frequent focus of his attention. The discussion and voting in the previous nomination for deletion focused on the notability of the subject and the adequacy of the citations. I am not disputing these aspects; it in on BLP grounds that I am making this proposal. DaveApter (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 6. Snotbot t • c » 19:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be an unnecessary content fork from Werner Erhard. The information appears notable, but it doesn't deserve its own article - creating an unnecessary fork seems to inherently raise WP:BLP issues. A merge would be fine also, although the key facts already seem to be in the parent article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for all the reasons noted in the first AfD - still holding well. W.E. and Scientology articles are hard-fought between partisans on all three sides (=WE, Sc, and those who want the Wikipedia to work) and getting actual facts into the W.E. articles (etc.) is almost impossible no matter how well-sourced - so those articles end up being sparse. This article is very fact- and source-driven, and the notable ideas and facts are NOT in the other articles. If an attempt was made to merge these facts into the W.E. article, for example, the partisans would eventually remove them via a war of attrition. Here they have safe harbor, therefore, this article should stand as is. Ratagonia (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just read the article again and I am at a loss to see any significant facts in it beyond the two which I summarised above in the nomination and which are covered in the main W.E. article, as they have been for some years now. The fact is that Erhard participated in some Scientology training during a period of intense ane wide-ranging philosophical enquiry. Should we have articles entitled Zen Buddhism and Werner Erhard, Taoism and Werner Erhard, Platonism and Werner Erhard, Heidigger and Werner Erhard, etc, etc? Clearly that would be ridiculous, so why single out Scientology if not to smear him by association with a movement which is widely regarded - rightly or wrongly - as creepy and suspect? (Incidentally, I have no strong opinion on the topic of Scientology per se). The principle that spurious association with Scientology was potentially defamatory was conceded on a debate some time ago relading to the List of Scientologists article, as a result of which a number of names (Erhard included) were removed from that list. DaveApter (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first part of the article can be covered in two sentences in the W.E. article. It is the organized attacks on W.E. by Scientology, the second part of the article that is of interest, and not well-covered in other articles. My opinion is because Scientology partisans grind down this material when it is placed in other articles, thus my claim that this article acts as Safe Harbor and therefore should be kept. Ratagonia (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks by Scientology are covered to some degree in the Werner Erhard article; if the coverage there were expanded and the extra citations from this page inserted there, would you agree that this would address your concerns? DaveApter (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, thank you. Ratagonia (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I have done work on this article to make it less biased, I did so in order to balance the slanderous negativity that the article originally contained. While it has improved, I think that the article (even the title of the article itself) casts an unwarranted negative light on a living person and it should be deleted. The user who originally created this page was banned from editing this topic due to persistently placing undue negative weight in articles related to both of these topic areas. Connecting someone with Scientology when little connection exists has a negative impact on a person's life and it is irresponsible for us to allow that to continue. There is already info about this topic in the Werner Erhard article and elements of this article could be added to it.--MLKLewis (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given: a) the provenance of the article (the fact that the user who created it has been banned from editing it), b) that the content is already covered more than adequately elsewhere, c) that it represents only a minute aspect of this man's life and doesn't merit an independent article, d) that it appears to have been written not to shed light but to link the subject to something perceived as negative, and e) that this is a living person, my opinion is the article should be deleted. I'm not a fan of Scientology or Mr. Erhard, but I am a fan of wikipedia. The use of wikipedia to craft articles that seem to have no other reason for being than to put a living person is a negative light damages the credibility of the entire enterprise. Nolatime (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a) The article appears to exist primarily for the purpose of connecting Mr. Erhard with an organization which connection the sources indicate he consistently disavows. b) Many of the sources provided contain circular references (the secondary and tertiary sources reference the primary sources and each other) which reduce the weight of the citations. c) Although many editors have acted in an attempt to create a NPOV, the article continues to cast multiple persons in a negative light (by direct or indirect reference). In other articles where these same sources are used, WP:BLP has been applied more stringently and appropriately. d) The article contains multiple tagged issues which are unresolved after three or more years of collaborative editing. These issues are largely resolved in the other articles addressing the same subjects. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons stated by the nominator. For what it is worth, I suspect the "The list of scientologists" article exists for a similar reason. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2011 (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 Janis_Joplin#Kozmic_Blues_Band. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kozmic Blues Band[edit]

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

contested prod. only notable for being Janis Joplin's backup band. Not Inherited. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Janis Joplin#Kozmic Blues Band. The band is covered in the Janis Joplin article but this article has some different details, i.e. members. There is coverage out there which can and should be used to expand this section (e.g. [9], [10], [11]) but as the band only existed as Joplin's backing band it probably doesn't merit a separate article.--Michig (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect There's very little substance to this article. Not very notable by itself. Would work better incorporated into Janis Joplin article. --Fightingirish (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2011 (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. causa sui (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V/H/S[edit]

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

This film has no release date. No other reliable source has confirmed any release dates. Notability for films has this to say; films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Also, WP:BALL also discourages article creation but, it does suggest that content could be merged. With out a confirmed release date, I don't think it could be merged to the producer article, Bloody Disgusting. Planetary ChaosTalk 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one-sentence stub without prejudice per WP:TOSOON. The film is slated to debut in about six weeks[12] and we can allow a recreation of a much better article after it does so and if it then receives coverge. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of renaming can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Japan relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. I don't see signficant third party coverage of actual relations. gnews turns up close to little. no resident ambassadors, most of relations occur in a Japan-Carribean context. Japanese foreign website refers to 5,300 million yen of investment which equates to USD70 million, this is a tiny fraction of Japan's economy. one ministerial visit in 44 years of relations says it all. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have meant, one ministerial visit from Japan. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Libstar always cracks me up. Now if I'm to accept your figures as accurate. Firstly US$70 Million in trade for a country with a population of only a quarter million is not "significant" in terms of share of overall trade? Japan is Barbados' fourth largest trading partner. But what do I know about 'significance.' That figure is only 250x the size of Barbados' total population.

Secondly, that part about one-visit between nations again is not correct.

1991 Prime Minister L. Erskine Sandiford;
1993 Minister of Foreign Affairs Brandford Taitt;
1994 Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Phillip Goddard;
1997 Minister of Health Elizabeth Thompson;
1999 President of Barbadian Museum and History Association;
2000 Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Billie Miller;
2004 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Billie Miller;
2005 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Billie Miller; Parliamentary Minister of the Department of the Treasury, Barker; Honorary Consul General of Japan in Bridgetown Kirton; Minister of State in Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Symmonds;
2009 Minister of State (Finance, Investment, Telecommunications and Energy), Darcy Boyce;
2010 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Maxine McClean;

To further set the record straight, the Consulate for Japan is in St.George [13]

CaribDigita (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and Barbados' GDP is about $4 billion. so a $70 million investment is relatively small. being the 4th largest trading partner does not guarantee an article on bilateral relations, what would, would be significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's a honorary consul, that is a volunteer position held by a resident. They have very little functions, and are in no way an ambassador, and is hardly an indicator of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - given the conflict on fishery rights this is a notable relationship. Pantherskin (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what fishery conflict? there is no mention of it in the article? LibStar (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda remember something about that. Wasn't there a dispute as-right about Japan & Taiwan's deep-sea fishing fleets catching fish in the EEZ of Barbados during the 1990s? Was that ever resolved? CaribDigita (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no opinion. If the fishery conflict was notable, could this article not be moved to one on that? DCItalk 03:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand at CARICOM-Japan relations. Nearly all the sources regard not interactions between Japan and Barbados in particular, but between Japan and CARICOM, an organization of 15 Caribbean nations and dependencies. It would be senseless to duplicate this information into a Japan-X relations article for every member of CARICOM. A merge would be effective in avoiding duplication: interactions between Japan and CARICOM would only be mentioned once, while basic facts like when Japan established foreign relations with each CARICOM nation could be listed in a table. It would also result in a larger article with better context. Dcoetzee 06:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The World Book Encyclopedia tells us that "Barbados trades mainly with Canada, Japan.... The World Guide tells us that "Japan signed agreements to invest in tourism on the island." These nations clearly have significant relations. Warden (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how about significant coverage in multiple sources? LibStar (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Warden seems to have cited multiple sources Shii (tock) 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warden. The suggestion to rename and expand to include all of Caricom has logic to it, but it would inevitably be the subject of deletion challenge too, knowing the history of this sort of article, and it would almost be harder to defend at AfD than this smaller nation-based piece. Carrite (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2011 (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young Scientists Online Journal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Journal was brought to AfD almost 3 years ago and at that time kept. However, there are still no reliable sources and the journal does not seem to be indexed in any selective database. A Google search gives about 80 hits, many of them WP mirrors, the rest apparently fairly trivial. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see no indication of notability. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 16:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (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. causa sui (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelbudd[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography of a non-notable actor/filmmaker. Only references are IMDb-style database entries. No reliable source coverage found. Fails WP:NACTOR. Previously prodded and deleted as Michael budd. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Rarely do appearances in music videos or commercials create a sourcable notability. Film career fails WP:NACTOR. Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. If or when this changes, we might consider an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:40, 10 December 2011 (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. causa sui (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish emergency budget, 2009[edit]

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

Although this budget is a very severe one for the Irish people, this edition (nor any others) is important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Merge? is there a page we can merge this with? sillybillypiggy^{¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE!} 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no. --86.40.106.131 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does the nominator seriously claim that this topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was an emergency budget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: The nominator was also blocked for disruption yesterday as evidenced from their talk page. Don't know how relevant that is but if they have been disruptive as recently as yesterday... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Very important and very notable event. Article has lots of reliable sources. Though all Irish budget articles could be merged into one article. Snappy (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the one hand, this budget was unique and notable. On the other hand, a list for every Irish budget is probably not the direction we want to go in. I'm leaning keep, with the provision that this doesn't necessarily justify every Irish budget getting an article. Alternatively, there could be one Irish budget article, as suggested by Snappy above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2009 (emergency delivery), 2010 (famous use of unparliamentary language), 2011 ("most draconian in history") and 2012 (A National Address By An Taoiseach Enda Kenny, TD) are at least exceptional enough for their own page. Maybe others are not but then they don't exist. It's just that all the recent ones have been fairly exceptional and their pages show how they were exceptional, so how did they end up being nominated for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - National budgets are very notable events because they are widely followed and reported. It may not be everyone's bed time reading, but I don't see why the article needs to be merged - a merged article would be very unwieldly! Sionk (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A merged article would grow even more unwieldy as time passes and more are added. If people are not interested in them, let them do something else. I oppose merging. — O'Dea (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - National budgets are notable economic events in any country at any time. The economy is a key driver of the life of a nation and shapes its history profoundly. The budget is one of the most notable elements in an economy. A national budget is important by definition. It is considerably more notable than any restaurant, about which the nominator writes frequently in Wikipedia. — O'Dea (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Irish budget, 2010 or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the same basis as the 2012 article. Importance does not decline for non-current events. An annual national budget of any large country will always have sufficient coverage to meet the guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 10:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish budget, 2010[edit]

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

Although this budget is a very severe one for the Irish people, this edition (nor any others) is important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does the nominator seriously claim that this topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: The nominator was also blocked for disruption yesterday as evidenced from their talk page. Don't know how relevant that is but if they have been disruptive as recently as yesterday... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very important and very notable event. Article has lots of reliable sources. Though all Irish budget articles could be merged into one article. Snappy (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - National budgets are very notable events because they are widely followed and reported. It may not be everyone's bed time reading, but I don't see why the article needs to be merged - a merged article would be very unwieldly! Sionk (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - National budgets are notable economic events in any country at any time. The economy is a key driver of the life of a nation and shapes its history profoundly. The budget is one of the most notable elements in an economy. A national budget is important by definition. It is considerably more notable than any restaurant, about which the nominator writes frequently in Wikipedia. — O'Dea (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This budget forms part of the story of the current economic crisis in Ireland. This (2010) and other years have seen massive economic change in Ireland and the Eurozone. As one of the eurozone members that was bailed out by the ECM/IMF, this budget & article explains some of the reasons for that, and provides backdrop. In 50 years when they are writing the history of the eurozone & financial crash & ireland's history, this budget will be featured, and this article will be used. There are numerous external, independent, 3rd party, highly reputable sources that have written about this topic. A brief look at the references shows: The Guardian, BBC, Sky News, Irish Times, RTÉ, Irish Examiner, TV3. Some further googling shows coverage in New York Times and Washington Post. I call on Night of the Big Wind to explain on what grounds they are claiming that this article is not notable, and to provide the research that shows it's not notable. Ebelular (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the same basis as the 2012 article. Importance does not decline for non-current events. A national budget of any large country will always have sufficient coverage to meet the guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 10:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW since only the nominator supports deletion. Clearly no consensus. This is not a meaningful discussion at this point and it threatens to descend into name calling. Shii (tock) 11:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish budget, 2012[edit]

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

Although this budget is a very severe one for the Irish people, this edition (nor any others) is important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really??? A national budget is not important enough? Category:2012 budgets, Category:2011 budgets, etc, it's not only Ireland, it's Canada, Pakistan, India, Britain, Australia and even Oklahoma too. This one is delivered in two parts for the first time and was preceded by A National Address By An Taoiseach Enda Kenny, TD so it's a pretty landmark budget by any standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This budget hits me too, but it is still not notable in my opinion. Every budget is in fact the same: the big guys screw up, the little guys have to pay. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion on budgets. It is irrelevant to the topic's notability who or what it hits. The fact is, as stated above, it is pretty landmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These arguments appear to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does the nominator seriously claim that this topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: The nominator was also blocked for disruption yesterday as evidenced from their talk page. Don't know how relevant that is but if they have been disruptive as recently as yesterday... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that have any relevance to this case, my friend? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially. Being blocked for disruption and then returning to make this nomination the following day is questionable. Myabe it is just a coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no disruption here. Night is very active in AfD discussions so it's natural that he continues doing that after his block. If you have issues with him take them elsewhere, AfD is not the place for them. Move along, nothing to see here. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Very important and very notable event. Article has lots of reliable sources. Though all Irish budget articles could be merged into one article. Snappy (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support the proposal to merge all these Irish budget articles into one, keeping the content. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what would be the page title? Irish budgets from 2009 as far as 2012? Bit unwieldy. Irish budgets of the 2000s and 2010s? Not even in the same decade. Irish budgets of the Cowen and Kenny governments? And delivered by four different political parties. So they have nothing in common. Each is notable in its own way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Extremely notable event in terms of the coverage it receives in the press. I would have thought if the article is expanded properly to summarise the proposals it can remain as an article in its own right. Sionk (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This editor has a strange idea of what is important. He deems a national budget unworthy of inclusion but fails to say why, but he creates articles about closed down Dutch restaurants, see L'Auberge (restaurant). Is he going to nominate all the other national budget articles too? Snappy (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what is the relevance of this? We are talking about the Budget, not about a former restaurant with two Michelinstars. Stay the course, dude. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what was meant by disruption. Trying to AGF on this but there are a few inconsistencies like that in the nominator's recent history and on their talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is already clear to me that you use WP:ABF. I have asked you before to remove the comments about the unrelated block, and I do it now again. Otherwise, feel the consequences. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What consequences? I am not the only one to think this nomination situation absurd. You want to create and keep closed-down Dutch restaurants and delete financial emergencies. Nothing against the restaurants at all (and they're irrelevant to the outcome of this nomination) but then your talk page shows you were blocked for disruption as recently as yesterday. And you've been removing categories from pages again and again. Once, fair enough, but it is quite hard to find good faith when you leave a 24-hour trail of devastation such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al articles are judged on their own merits. So there is no relation at all with any other article that is brought forward for judgement. Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It relates to your questionable recent behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I created this article when I noticed that there were precedents for previous years, and with the 2012 budget imminent the following day, it was clear that it was time to prepare the Budget 2012 article. I have not had time yet to follow the details of the budget nor to expand the article, but this budget is of special and high national historical importance in Ireland, owing to the distress being experienced in the country and because this budget will be so powerfully historically determining. Anyone who cannot appreciate the importance of this budget just hasn't been following the news, and simply doesn't know what he is talking about. The nomination for deletion is ridiculous. In addition, there are other budget articles to be seen in Category:2011 budgets. Should they all be deleted? Are not national budgets of great importance during normal times, let alone during times of historical stress? This is self-evidently an absurd deletion nominaton. — O'Dea (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think so. This is in fact a case of WP:1E. After the initial storm laid down, people just go on. Accepting what is coming done upon them because they can't change it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not everybody "just goes on". But even if they did go on what relevance does people going on or not going on have to the notability of national budgets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: requesting WP:SNOW This is a very silly nomination considering the coverage this issue has got. If anyone else thinks this is ridiculous, please close this nomination. I would do it myself but nobody has specifically asked for it to be closed yet. Shii (tock) 01:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would do it too but I've already nearly been banned twice today for correcting grammar and sorting categories. What a ridiculous and contradictory website this is sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about requesting of nomination closure but if it will help to send this silliness away, I hereby request closure. — O'Dea (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is a good idea, just because you think it is a silly nomination. The option of merging the individual budget articles looks a great option to me. Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you said this budget is not "important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia"; you say, it is "not notable in my opinion"; and "every budget is in fact the same". You make it difficult to take you seriously when you argue that budget articles are all the same and should not be in Wikipedia, and then contradict yourself by saying they should be kept and re-packaged as a group, as though lumping them together somehow compensated for their — according to you — individual unworthiness. — O'Dea (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody apart from you thinks it is silly. Nobody can understand the paradox between your wish to have pages for closed down Dutch restaurants and no pages for national budgets. This is time wasting. You might find yourself described here under "Misuse of process". Quite a few of your edits in recent hours appear to match that description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is in fact what you are doing, my friend. But pulling all sorts of personal comments and attacks in that have no relevance for this discussion. And it would be nice when you tone down your aggresive attitude a bit. Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not intending to be aggressive. I have tried to choose my words carefully. Just offering some friendly advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you leave those attacks on the nomination pages, no one will believe you or take your arguments serious. Aggression and attacks don't fit in a civilized discussion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:19, 7 December 2011 (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. causa sui (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misha Norland[edit]

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

Plain old notability. Despite discussion here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Homeopathy, there is still a lack of adequate sources to demonstrate notability. A still-living, currently-active practitioner in their field at the claimed level of significance ought to be able to generate some 3rd party sources. These two articles, despite efforts, are still failing to. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Homeopathy itself is (sadly) notable but all the references for this guy are in a walled garden of non-independent sources, nothing much in the mainstream that I can find. Tricky though - compare with Richard C. Hoagland who is undoubtedly notable within a circle of lunatics, and makes enough of a splash in the world of normality that he deserves an article. andy (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a woeful lack of sources makes the lack of notability entirely clear. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are some books, not all of which are self-published, and a brief mention in a news article: [14]. 202.124.74.113 (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per Google News, Google Scholar, or Google Books. Interesting feature of his biography in the article: it describes him as drifting through various non-science-related fields, and then all of a sudden he has "a successful homeopathic practice". No mention of any education or training, just "WHAM! Look at me, I'm a homeopath." Kind of fulfills my worst suspicions about homeopathy. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2011 (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. Those advocating for deletion argued that the references to Viramontes were generally routine coverage of local affairs, trivial, outdated, or even to a different person. Arguments to keep included the overall volume of coverage was sufficient, that some sources had non-trivial coverage, that the nomination was in bad faith, the nomination should be ignored on procedural grounds, or that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the last three are not strong arguments. One source used, this one, did appear to give significantly more than trivial coverage of Viramontes, but this was not enough to sway those advocating for deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

María Viramontes[edit]

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

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, all Google Books and Google Scholar references are to directories that list little more than her phone number. A few list a completely different Maria Viramontes Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This article is clearly non-notable. You haven't even bothered to read it Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(retracted comment) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nom should be aware of the fact that Carrite posted their comment about 9 hours before the nominator posted the additional rationale. You don't know whether they've seen it or not, since they have not commented further here - so accusing them of not having bothered is right out. I'd appreciate it if you retracted that remark. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly do so. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think that the subject is clearly non-notable, but there needs to be significant coverage to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN in this case. She was a council member for a municipality, which does not itself indicate notability, and she was/is (?) the CEO of a foundation. I can't find anything about the foundation - and that's what I thought might lend more notability than the council seat, frankly. Show me sources and I'm happy to Keep this one, but I just don't see it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was a ~~one-term~~ two-term councilmember and received minimal coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was a two-term council member. Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I stand corrected. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep, bad faith nomination, this woman I believe was the leader of the anti-green party, pro-chevron, pro-casino, anti-enviroment "Viramontes 5" opposition bloc on the council which made headlines when it was overthrown giving the council a very progressive majority. She meets the general notability requirement.Luciferwildcat (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd tend to agree, on that basis - but for the fact that I can't find sources to confirm. If we can source this article, it's a slam-dunk keep - and, as I said, I'd be happy to switch over to that recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also looked for evidence whether "Viramontes Five" became a common term or "made headlines" in local politics. Apparently it did not. The only reference to the Viramontes Five that I could find was this, an op-ed by an opposition councilmember (thus not independent) in the Berkeley Planet (not a major or Reliable Source). It does not appear that she achieves notability on this basis. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a way to delay this vote to find them I am sure they are there, Look what I could do with Harpreet Sandhu, but with so many nominations I don't have the time while the deletion clock is ticking, that is what makes mass nominations bad faith to me.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing a hit on either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Municipal politician, a single term on a council, what coverage exists appears to be routine and local. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that she meets WP:POLITICIAN. Sionk (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:N. As per Carrite and others, there are concerns about this nomination and WP:BEFORE. I added seven refs. There are more in the San Francisco Chronicle archive. Was a two-term council member, involved in legalized pot, legalized gambling, and slavery reparations. Probably got attention from the media for being the leading female Latino in the city. Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Coverage underwhelms, and hardly comes close to substantial, bordering on trivial. Most of it is routine and purely local.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This topic passes WP:GNG. Note this more specific Google News search below, in which the topic is covered in numerous reliable sources:

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need to link to the specific sources that you feel makes this GNG worthy that everyone else seems to have ignored, not simply copy-paste the find sources template.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which, may I add, you seem to have done on quite a few AfD's recently. Remember, the point of these discussions is to help form a consensus through actual supported arguments and points, not to simply build up as many !votes as possible regardless of quality.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yaksar. Have you actually looked at the sources? I don't believe this vote should carry much weight unless a specific, in-depth source is mentioned Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you? Any serious attempt at looking through the sources will find you many, especially about the Point Molate casino, and the 2008 election. The SF chronicle, contra costa times, and oakland tribune mention them a lot.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Firstly, the find sources link I posted above is not a "copy/paste", it is a refined, customized search that yields search results for this topic. Secondly, per WP:BASIC, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Many of these links do not constitute "trivial coverage", and address the subject in detail. See [15], [16], [17] for just a few of them. Lastly, the comment above about my !vote as existent to "build up as many !votes as possible" is false, and opinionated. However, I do fully understand the concept of specificity, hence the clarification with link examples in this comment. Peace. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wp:notability is not defined by the existence of an "in depth source" but rather is the sum of the attention being given the topic. I added two more refs to the article. Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think there's some confusion as to why there are objections to an article with purely local coverage, especially for a politician. We need some sort of indication that the coverage is more significant than routine reporting on local affairs. We trust, for example, that The Day (New London) is a reliable newspaper in its region, but that doesn't mean that every city councilman from, say Groton, Connecticut should have an article. We need to try to use some WP:COMMONSENSE on what actually counts as significant coverage, and a bunch of one line mentions in routine articles is not that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Far more trivial people have been kept with a lot less sources like local rappers J-Stalin, Lyrics Born, and MC Lars.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument if ever there was Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:58, 13 December 2011 (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. m.o.p 05:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spastic Hawk[edit]

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

The article appears to be on a non-notable musical work. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Alison ^❤ 02:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's really nothing in this article that isn't already in the Rubberbandits one. Very few links to it. --Fightingirish (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2011 (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/redirect. I merged it pretty much intact, may need some cleanup. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RTInation[edit]

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

Non-notable online system, sources insufficient to demonstrate notabilty. ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loathe to delete this, as it's another WP:IEP article. Please read the background over there and take into account the deadlines and problems of that project before acting hastily. If it's already on the IEP cleanup lists, it's unlikely to be overlooked. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2011 (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) 16:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I am understanding the article, this apparently has to do with a right to information procedure or law in India. The article itself is about some sort of online form to submit requests under that law. ~~As far as I can tell we have no article about that Indian law or department.~~ The underlying law is also fairly self evidently worthy of a standalone article. If we had one, this would have an obvious merger target. As it stands now it's an oddly promotional piece that's seriously lacking in context. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke too soon. Smerge and/or redirect to Right to Information Act, 2005. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. Clear merge. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ORER Armenian European Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. Very few hits on Google on the full name, "Orer" or the name of the editor. No proof of notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2011 (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) 16:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did a Google search which only brought up this article, Facebook, and the official website. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2011 (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 non-admin closure as Keep - nominator withdrawal. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Engelbrecht[edit]

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

non-notable, fails WP:NACTOR Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2011 (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) 16:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NACTOR. The article about HER at the German Wikipedia (translated) indicates that productions currently redlinked at en.Wikipedia are notable enough, even if only to Germany... and a production or actress determinable as notable to Germany is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. What we do do when after eliminating false positives and finding non-English coverage in books and news sources, is to address systemic bias by working on translating sources so we can improve the article. On it now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, first you expand the article big time, and then you start waving with the systemic bias-flag. There is no way a systemic bias from my side. The article that I nominated was an extremely short article. By now, it is already much more, but it suffers from a severe lack of sources. But you make progress, keep up the good work. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. I began with an expansion as I researched, as I far prefer addresssing issues if I am able, before offering a comment. And as an example that I recognize that my efforts do not always result in a "keep" comment, I did a similar expansion for the article Doug Roberts (actor) before commenting in a different fashion at that other article's AFD. And I fully agree... the "bias" is absolutely and in no way yours... but is simply one recognized as a weakness inherent in our system. And even though notability is found through suitable topic sources being available and not through them being "in" an article as citations, I'm still on it... and will use available sources as citations as I get them translated. Patience, please. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a systemetic bias in Wikipedia, but that is pro-American and/or pro-English-language. Recently an article was considered non-notable because the nominator could not read the Dutch sources. :-) Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for speedy close as keep Article shows now that the actress will pass WP:NACTOR by a wide enough margin. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harpreet Sandhu[edit]

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

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural Keep~~- One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the question I've asked on your other needless and unproductive procedural keep votes...have you actually read the article? Also, are you familiar with WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN, both of which this article fails going away? Furthermore, is not your keep rationale cut-and-pasted from other prodecural keep rationales? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Changing to Keep, see below) He was only on the council for a couple of years and got minimal coverage. However, I object to your rote claim that the article is "outdated". I personally updated this article on December 3, to reflect the fact that he is no longer on the council. I would appreciate it if you would respond to these articles in their current state, rather than the state they were in before your first mass nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep, bad faith nomination and also, this guy was the only sikh politician in the whole state I believe which is pretty unique and notable.Luciferwildcat (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so he has a lot more information now. I found a lot of mentions in the major publication the San Francisco Chronicle, I added his personal website, he was definitely the first Asian and of course Sikh on the council, he was endorsed by then attorney general/fmr. governor jerry brown (now governor) he was also chosen to represent this congressional district at the national level by Obama during the 2008 campaign, he was also one of the preeminent Sikhs invited to the white house's first Sikh celebration at the white house, he is president of what may be the largest gurdwara in the country or one of the largest ones, and he was also a member of the city of Richmond's human rights council, only sikh in office in california at the time, one of only a few in the whole nation, in addition to probably being voted out for joining the controversial Viramontes 5.LuciferWildCat (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to Keep. The additional sources added by Luciferwildcat, plus his status as a rare/first Sikh officeholder, make him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the reasons stated above for my earlier Procedural Keep opinion remain, excellent additional work has subsequently been done to the piece to render this fully encyclopedia-worthy. So I'd like to emphasize I'm in the full Keep camp here. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for having a look, I hope purple would reconsider as well. I will say I have finals this week, but am able to find the same amount of sources on all these folks. I think Mindel Penn will be tricky, but the rest have tons of sources. Is there a way I can get the framework back if they are deleted before I have a chance to save?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic passes GNG, per availability of reliable sources (see specific Google News link below).

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, have you actually looked at the sources? For example, there is only one Scholar source, and it doesn't cover Sandhu in depth. I don't believe this vote should carry much weight unless a specific, in-depth source is mentioned Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not established by the narrow provision of "does he actually have scholarly sources". Someone can have four books about them but not scholarly research on them and vice versa, so you present a miserly false dichotomy. He is clearly of national importance as a Sikh and has received repeated non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. He meets GN.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural Research Station, Rahangala[edit]

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

Not notable institution Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2011 (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) 16:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable, and not a good candidate for a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohammdad Ibrahim Saheb[edit]

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

This biography of a person describes the founding of a village... Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems the subject ordered the development of Harihans and Koth, Ballia so I am assuming he was the local ruler of the area or had some position of power. Although I'm not sure if that makes him notable or not. JoshyDinda (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2011 (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) 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable sources to support notability with this topic.--MLKLewis (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2011 (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. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albinus Hasselgren[edit]

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

I'm not seeing much of an assertion of notability, and I don't know if the sourcing supplied in the article is sufficient for the GNG. A quick Google doesn't pick up much sourcing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2011 (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) 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Hegvald (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With two of the listed sources being in Swedish, this should have been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sweden at an earlier stage. --Hegvald (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BIO. also the fact that this person has an article on swedish wikipedia proves that the person has made an impact on Sweden. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, having an article on the Swedish Wikipedia doesn't really prove anything. --Hegvald (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The article is actually cited with "reliable, independent third-party sources", although the depth of coverage may be difficult to judge without checking the sources. Svenskt konstnärslexikon is a well-known Swedish work of reference, a dictionary of biography of Swedish artists, but it is also a bit on the inclusive side, including many short articles on comparatively obscure artists and artisans. Jeff Werner, Medelvägens estetik is a two-volume, roughly 1000-page collection of studies of American images of and ideas about Sweden. Werner, the author, is a professor of art history at Stockholm University. (The book has been reviewed in Sweden's second-largest morning paper, Svenska Dagbladet.) Without checking whether Hasselgren is extensively discussed or just mentioned in passing by Werner, the value of the reference is difficult to judge. The value of Svenskt konstnärslexikon would also depend on the amount of coverage. I don't really have time until well after this discussion is supposed to close to check either of these references. If somebody else is willing to do so and can show that the coverage in the cited references is insufficient, I will reconsider this "keep". --Hegvald (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just per Hegvald. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2011 (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. Passes the GNG, as is pointed out by the keeps. Nominator: your point about a supposed lack of independence holds little weight. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Griffin (Councilmember)[edit]

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

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This vote should be retracted, as it's clear the editor hasn't even bothered to read the article, and is voting to keep a load of cruft on this Wiki. This article, and all the other ones nominated in a similar matter, are permastubs created in a fly-by-night manner and should have been deleted years ago. And it's by no means offensive to say local news doesn't count. There are many items that are required in policy and/or supported by the consensus of editors. What's offensive is your procedural keep vote Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a bad faith nomination, this man has been on council for years, wikipedia is not paper, local matters if notable and referencible should be included too, and this is not ridiculous, I will expand them myself as I find them interesting, and take a look at Richmond-San Rafael Ferry Company a local topic of interest, it was a simple stub for years nearly identical to when It was created but then years later someone added a ton of info, from sources in books. This town seems rather neglected to me on wikipedia and if we don't build it they wont come.Luciferwildcat (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found plenty of references about him; he served for more than 20 years. You're a fine one to accuse others of "not reading the article". I personally updated this article on December 3, bringing it up to date and adding information and references, but you are still repeating your rote claim of "outdated". I wish you would respond to the articles in their current state instead of the state they were in before your first mass nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete - I didn't think I had the strength to work through the bio of yet another minor politician from Richmond, but I did, and my view is that Mr Griffin is similarly not sufficiently notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Richmond councilman fails WP:Politician, and a few obits and other routine coverage isn't enough to make him notable otherwise. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, he is generally notable, take Harpreet Sandhu for instance one of the other mass nominations, if you would vote procedural keep to give some time for me to clean this up like I did that less notable candidate I would be very appreciative.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN, the brief obituaries say he was "never controversial", which politely suggests he was a jobbing councillor who did nothing (apart from dying) that would attract attention. Sionk (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -This topic receives significant coverage in RS. Try this more-specific search in Google News below:

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Our guidelines do not say, " 'routine' means worthless". President Obama and the War in Iraq are "routinely" covered too, routine coverage means that we can expect that there is enough material about a topic to write an encyclopedia article. Our policy at WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion suggests the next step to consider if a topic is not notable is, where can it be merged? And we have at least one reasonable target, the Richmond City Council. If we re-interpret the delete !votes to be merge !votes, we can also re-interpret the essence of the delete argument by recalling that WP:N is not satisfied just because a topic passes WP:GNG, the topic must also be "worthy of notice". So we can still properly ask the question, "Is the topic "worthy of notice?" and question whether or not the topic should have a stand-alone article Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge As far as establishing wp:notability, Northamerica1000's search shows online sources since 1995. There is no need to count much past two, minimum requirements are met with more available. In addition, we can extend the coverage using WP:NRVE (sources are "likely") with another ten years of articles available in dozens of libraries around the US that contain microfilm of the San Francisco Chronicle (see www.worldcat.org to locate libraries). So wp:notability is not in question. Is the topic "worthy of notice"? Yes, except that I don't see that in the current article, and there are few links into the article, so it would be ok to merge this topic to Richmond City Council or List of members of the Richmond City Council. Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@internet[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. Fails GNG. Appealcourt (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found only one other mention besides the official website, but it was in an unreliable source. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2011 (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) 16:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2011 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering Storm (advertisement)[edit]

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

Simply not notable enough for its own article. Text should be reduced and redirected back to National Organization for Marriage. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is one of the most notable US advertisements of this century. Covered substantially in The New York Times, Salon, MSNBC, [CNN http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/11/cnr.09.html]... heck the Deseret News saw fit to cover the fact that Huntsman had not seen the ad. Parodied at The Colbert Report, Funny Or Die, and many others, the parodies themselves drew coverage online from the Entertainment Weekly and Fox News. Even its title drew NYT commentary. I'm not going to pull every quote, but do the gnews archive search and you'll see in talked about in Time, in Washington Post, outside of the US in the Spectator. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Handily meets WP:GNG. Bad faith nomination, no effort exerted to research sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Alicia Silverstone, Lance Bass Star In 'Gathering Gay Storm' Video For Funny Or Die" Huffington Post Comedy
- "The Bigots’ Last Hurrah" The New York Times Op-Ed
- "The Gathering Storm of Same-Sex Marriage" UK Spectator
- "Stephen Colbert’s “Gathering Storm”" Salon.com
- "Marriage Equality - Gathering Storm or Rising Tide?" Huffington Post Op-Ed
- "‘Gathering Storm’ group returns with more anti–gay marriage ads" The Minnesota Independent
  Those are all opinion sources. There aren't any news stories on it. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - a) That's not true. There are news articles on it, mentioned above; and b) that's irrelevant, as WP:GNG does not excise the opinion sections of third-party reliable sources. For much coverage of media, opinion sources are the key sources being looked for (book reviews, for example.) It shows notability in that they are noting it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Bad faith nomination": do you have evidence for this or is this just an unsubstantiated, baseless, unfounded, and false personal attack? – Lionel ^(talk) 08:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - By bad faith nomination I mean that NYyankees51 did not perform the least bit of research to discover reliable sources. If he had, he would have found them, and he would have known the article was a keeper. Instead, he filed this tendentious Afd, requiring the rest of us to take time out of our lives, research the topic, and respond. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Bad faith entails "intentional deceit of others". Your usage of this term is a personal attack. I suggest you apologize lest this incident be added to your lengthy record of incivility. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Your concern for civility is laudable. I wonder, though, why you do not care as much about the time-wasting Afd filed by NYY. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issue - I can't seem to fix the template at the top, anyone know what the problem is? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Template fixed; you left the closing brackets off of the NOM wikilink. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - Nat has done a bang-up job gathering material about this advertisement but I just don't see the point of leaving it out on its own as an independent article. I can think of a few true advertisements of the century (buy the world a Coke comes to mind, for some reason) and most of them are incorporated into their rightful parent article. - Haymaker (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You and Wikipedia appear to differ in regard to judging notability of articles. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an article primarily about that Coke ad campaign, which is a notable ad of a previous century. Plenty of ad campaigns have their own pages. And before I am granted too much credit for the content of the article, most of it comes from material added by others to the NOM article, as noted in the original edit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage in multiple secondary WP:RS sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this media event does not have lasting significance; fails WP:EVENT. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an event, it is a piece of media, one which inspired other pieces of media. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above sources mentioned by NatGertler and Binksternet. I'm not sure what the relevant guideline for commercials is, but this would meet the WP:GNG, at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly fits WP:GNG. AV3000 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This nomination is ABYSMAL. WP:GNG is clearly met, and nominator should do 10 pushups.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathanial Bates[edit]

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

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This vote should be retracted, as it's clear the editor hasn't even bothered to read the article, and is voting to keep a load of cruft on this Wiki. This article, and all the other ones nominated in a similar matter, are permastubs created in a fly-by-night manner and should have been deleted years ago. And it's by no means offensive to say local news doesn't count. There are many items that are required in policy and/or supported by the consensus of editors. What's offensive is your procedural keep vote Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Part of rationale for deletion "Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough" unacceptable. The Proffesor (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable isn't the word you want Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It's probably worth noting that this article misspells the subject's name (it's Nathaniel), which has me be a bit suspicious of the content of the article. That being said, Bates' notability clearly exceeds the other members of the Richmond council in regards to the attention that his last mayoral run got in the Bay Citizen, and through it, the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10bcrichmond.html?pagewanted=all Without this kind of coverage, even being mayor doesn't meet WP:Politician, but the material in reliable sources leans me to keep at this point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found plenty of coverage about him and added some to the article. He is one of the longest-serving city councilmembers in the state of California (32 years including two stints as mayor). I strongly object to your repeated, rote claim that the article is "outdated". I personally updated this article on December 3, adding information and references. I would appreciate it if you would respond to these articles in their current state, rather than the state they were in before your first mass nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe he was one of the first black mayors back in the day after the 1964 civil rights act took place and he is a local legend in the Bay Area's black community. He is also clearly "generally notable".Luciferwildcat (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Slightly more notable than some of the other non-notable politicians from Richmond, CA that I have read about today. I think he was actually the second African American mayor of that not-terribly-significant town. I still don't think he quite cuts it though, and would delete. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He barely meets WP:POLITICIAN but the one newspaper source has some relevant info that needs to be added to the article.Sionk (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these should be combined. They were all mayors of Richmond, a city with over a hundred thousand people in it, and thus got ample coverage. Dream Focus 18:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100,000 is a purely arbitrary number. Does that mean the mayor of a city like Richmond with 104,000 is significant, an a mayor of a city with 96,000 isn't? It doesn't work that way. Also, these were combined, and everybody said, "split 'em up because they're different", so I split them up. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not arbitrary, 100,000 is the standard threshold for what constitutes a major city, and yes a city with 94,000 is not a major city because 100K+ is the threshold.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Nat Bates" and delete the resulting redirect for Nathanial Bates Thanks to Nwlaw63 for mentioning the error in the title. Few online newspaper archives go back to 1967, so we can expect as per WP:NRVE that someone with access to the downtown San Francisco main library would find a long list of additional references in the back copies of the San Francisco Chronicle, references beyond these. But just the first three of these are enough to show wp:notability. This ref is the full-length article partially carried in the SFC. Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This topic appears to be receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Note that as denoted above by another user, this person's first name is misspelled. Check out this Google News search for more sources:

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Márquez[edit]

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

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: None of the Google Books or Scholar references to "John Marquez" are to this John Marquez Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This vote should be retracted, as it's clear the editor hasn't even bothered to read the article, and is voting to keep a load of cruft on this Wiki. This article, and all the other ones nominated in a similar matter, are permastubs created in a fly-by-night manner and should have been deleted years ago. And it's by no means offensive to say local news doesn't count. There are many items that are required in policy and/or supported by the consensus of editors. What's offensive is your procedural keep vote Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also above comment about lack of Google Books or Scholar articles Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:Politician, and doesn't have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify otherwise. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I added some info to the article but I didn't really find a lot of coverage about him. However, he was the first Latino on the council, and he served for 23 years, so those facts might count toward notability. I do object to your rote claim that the article is "outdated". I personally updated this article on December 3, adding information and references. You keep accusing others of "not even bothering to read the article", but I would say you are even more guilty of this, for failing to recognize the improvements that have been made in some of the articles since your original mass nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a bad faith nomination and they are not permastubs, the only fly by night editing I see is the same exact copy and paste rational for a half dozen articles. I see no good faith effort at trying to add to these articles. He was there for 23 years and he was the first hispanic, he also served on numerous government boards so this man was read about and featured in the paper for years, wikipedia is not paper and he seems generally notable here. I also find it offensive that someone would demand someone retract their opinion.Luciferwildcat (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are you kidding me? How many minor politicians from Richmond, California am I going to have to work my through here today? A one-term vice mayor? It just doesn't cut it, even if he was the first Latino on the City Council (unsourced, but plausible). --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources have now been added verifying that he was the first Latino on the council. BTW he was a one-term vice mayor but a 23 year councilmember. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment sources can be found if you procedural keeped this one.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's not what procedural keep is for... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mayors of cities with over a hundred thousand people in them, get ample coverage for their activities. Dream Focus 18:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Marquez was never mayor... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 100,000 is a purely arbitrary number. Does that mean the mayor of a city like Richmond with 104,000 is significant, an a mayor of a city with 96,000 isn't? It doesn't work that way Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A number has to be set, that as good as anyone. And this AFD wasn't a mayor unlike a few others you nominated at once, which I had posted in. My mistake. Dream Focus 21:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I nommed them in different AFDs...because some were mayor and some weren't Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Carrite, there are concerns about this nomination and WP:BEFORE. Further, I see no theoretical possibility that this article would be outright deleted. It has an edit history with good faith edits, and there is no case to be made to delete the redirect. I found that the San Francisco Chronicle, a major regional newspaper, provides coverage of Richmond politics and has an accessible archive, and I added two refs to the article. As far as wp:notability, even though not a mayor, there is plenty of extra material here for the topic to rise to an equivalent level and be "worthy of notice": latino, 23 years in office, ran for mayor, in office during a vote-buying scandal investigated by the FBI, vice-mayor, and given recognition by the California legislature. Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, BEFORE doesn't necessarily have to be followed 100% of the time; especially in a fairly obvious deletion case like this where the subject fails two notability guidelines, POLITICIAN and ANYBIO. And what do the edits being in good faith have to do with anything? They don't...if a non-notable article is created with good faith edits, it can still be deleted. "Given recognition by the California legislature"...that means nothing. They can give recognition to a person for making Eagle Scout or that Jovember 32nd is Eat a Cold Pizza Day. The Legislature's recognition does in no way imply notability. Finally, I agree with what Reyk said. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There really already is a threashhold, it is widely agreed that 100,000 is a major indicator of a major city. As per the United States Census Bureau, any map gives 100K plus the 2nd biggest dot also by the way. This is a major port city of 100,000 people and as such a major city has enough press about it and size and its own institutions which more resemble a city state and that is what makes its politicians notable. A small town has one cityhall/postoffice/firepolicestation/library/community room/building or two tops, major cities have several branches of all of these things and major infrastructure like regional or international airports or seaports, pipeline terminals, magnet hospitals, industry, universities, subway stations etc. Richmond has most of these as most major cities do.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, this has to do with preserving the edit history, which is no longer useful if it gets deleted, this is from WP:ATD, or WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. WP:GNG is always an applicable guideline, and I don't see that the new claims that ANYBIO and POLITICIAN fail are matched with supporting evidence. I've provided reliable references from one of the most well-known newspapers in the US. I don't know why you think the California legislature's recognition doesn't contribute to notability, they are showing that the topic "attracts attention" and is "worthy of notice". Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- can we focus on the article rather than attacking the nominator or quibbling about the form of the nomination? I see many of the more obnoxious red herring keep arguments in this debate:
- "Hasn't followed WP:Before". Doesn't matter even if that's true. WP:BEFORE is not a policy. It's not even a guideline.

- "Same copy & paste rationale as other nominations"- If there are many similar articles, all suffering from the same flaws, then it's reasonable to expect the nominations to be similar or identical. Demanding the nominator word the same argument in multiple different ways is a meaningless artificial hurdle. I don't think I need to point out the hypocrisy of responding to a copy&paste deletion nomination with a copy&paste "wikilawyer keep" vote.

- "This nomination is bad faith". Beneath contempt, frankly.
I don't see much validity in any of the keep arguments so far, and a lot of misdirection and posturing. Reyk _YO! 01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This topic appears to pass WP:GNG, per the availability of reliable sources that address the topic in detail. Check out this additional search for Google News:

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a version of cut-and-paste votes you've pasted on a number of articles of varying notability in the last day or two. I note above that there isn't a single Books or Scholar reference to this guy, and most of the Google references are to other people with the same name, so I consider your !vote quite dubious Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to have a copy and paste response to spurious mass nominations. Google news and scholar items that you may or may not have found are irrelevant, the actual reliable sources that are plentiful and have been found and slowly added to the article are the merits on which this AfD should be judged.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This was NOT a copy/paste !vote whatsoever, it was adding a find sources template to this AfD discussion, in which the availability of reliable sources qualifies topic notability. Notice how I customized the search with the subject's name and the city name "Richmond", which wasn't copy/paste whatsoever. A bogus critique of this !vote (by User:Purplebackpack89). Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then how come it bears striking resemblance to other votes you made the same day, including ones that didn't have to do with non-notable councilmen in podunk cities? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:11, 14 December 2011 (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. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irma Anderson, I cannot determine a consensus. Again, the evidence for keep is slim, but some coverage is there, and delete votes suffer a bit much from the difficulty of determining which size city is big enough. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Corbin[edit]

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

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that local papers are "not independent enough" to contribute to notability for a biography.WP:N says "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent." Still I like to see more than local sources. WP:BIO cites the essay Wikipedia:Independent sources which does not exclude local newspapers. If the subject were an organization, then WP:ORG would apply and it does require more than local sources:"On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." This is an inconsistency in our notability guidelines. Edison (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to read the article? No. If you did, you'd realize that this article is non-notable and should be deleted Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as the first woman mayor of a this major industrial/port city of over 100K people. Local doesn't mean her own newsletter or blog, it means the press from the San Francisco Bay Area which is an enormous media market of well over 12 million.Luciferwildcat (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does Richmond being a port city have to do with Corbin's notability? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reread your comments and mine, it is clear from the context.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found only routine coverage about her as mayor and city councilmember. I can't imagine what Luciferwildcat is referring to, putting forward a notability claim that is not found in the article and does not appear to be true. San Diego had a woman mayor in 1985, which predates this person elected in 1993 - and San Diego would seem to trump Richmond as a "major industrial/port city of over 100K people". --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment, she was the first woman mayor of Richmond and Richmond is a major port/industrial city, she is also generally notable.Luciferwildcat (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment pretty notable that she founded a national park.Luciferwildcat (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If she had actually "founded a national park" that would be a good argument. However, other women seem to get the primary credit for spearheading that national historic park, according to the park's Wikipedia article. It was founded while she was mayor, and she is now on the park's board, but her role doesn't seem to have been significant enough to make her notable on that basis. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just not notable enough. As I think I noted elsewhere, I think you need more than being a one term may in the 61st largest city of one of the US States. Otherwise, you extrapolate that across 50 states, and 206 countries worldwide and we'd be drowning in articles on minor political careers. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment well this is about the notability of this woman, and that doesn't sound bad to me, wikipedia is not paper so no one would drown, if we have reliable independent sources for them all, why not?LuciferWildCat (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of ANYBIO and POLITICIAN... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN and no evidence has been provided of any significant coverage. She is briefly mentioned in a news article and listed as a member of a board of directors. Sionk (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mayor of a city of significant size, she getting ample news coverage. Dream Focus 18:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100,000 for "significant size" is a purely arbitrary number. Does that mean the mayor of a city like Richmond with 104,000 is significant, an a mayor of a city with 96,000 isn't? It doesn't work that way Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:N section WP:NRVE, and unlike WP:V, it is not necessary that sources be cited in the article, it is only necessary that it be "likely" that they exist. In this case, the SFGate archive appears to start in 1996, and has 80 references, but we can be entirely certain that in libraries around the Bay Area including the main library in San Francisco, there exist records of the Richmond mayor's election in 1993 that provide additional significant coverage. Topic easily passes WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, and therefore WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

80 references, eh? How many of them provide more than a passive mention of Corbin? Remember that in-depth coverage is needed Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not passive she's just been mentioned too many times.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Try this additional search:

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before yet another person points out how many Google hits this person has, they may want to re-read WP:PEOPLE, particularly 'Invalid criteria' which specifically says:

"Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking) ...for most topics search engines cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches... When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links. Sionk (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Google web searches often have lots of useless material. The archive search I reported is a specialized case in which most of the hits are wp:reliable. Going on, sampling indicated to me that there was a high percentage of these articles that show the Mayor "attracting attention". I did not mean to suggest that the finding of 80 potential references by itself defined notability. It was more of an inference that suggested I had found a target-rich URL that was worth investigating, and also came with a conviction on my part that anyone that examined the list would discover sufficiently significant material to pass WP:GNG. I.e., case closed with an overwhelming list of sources with more-than-trivial material. Unscintillating (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the many sources as well not blind hits. This woman was not only mayor, she also served on many committees and other positions such as the Contra Costa Transit Authority, Richmond Main Street Initiative, Bay Trail Committee, Rosie the Riveter WWII Homefront National Historic Park and many others, the sources meet her notability as per WP:NRVE which says that the existence of sources proves notability as long as they are proven they don't even have to be incorporated with in line or in article mentions.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2011 (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. Unfortunately, WP:POLITICIAN has no opinon here. I cannot determine a consensus among participants. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irma Anderson[edit]

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

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This vote should be retracted, as it's clear the editor hasn't even bothered to read the article, and is voting to keep a load of cruft on this Wiki. This article, and all the other ones nominated in a similar matter, are permastubs created in a fly-by-night manner and should have been deleted years ago. And it's by no means offensive to say local news doesn't count. There are many items that are required in policy and/or supported by the consensus of editors. What's offensive is your procedural keep vote Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no confirmation of the claim that she was the first African-American woman mayor of a major California city - only that she was the first African-American woman to be mayor of Richmond. Her career and news coverage are otherwise unremarkable. However, I object to your rote claim that the article is "outdated". I personally updated this article on December 3, to reflect her prior service on the council. I would appreciate it if you would respond to these articles in their current state, rather than the state they were in before your first mass nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a bad faith mass nomination, also I am from Richmond and I recall her claiming to be the first female black mayor of a major California city, this makes her notable, also she got a lot of press coverage as one of the rare mayors to lose an incumbancy, not only that, she lost to a green party member (Gayle McLaughlin) and this was a very close and tighly watched race which I remember making at least statewide news. She ran against Gayle again later to try and win back the seat but lost. Richmond is a major city as well, the US Census Bureau defines a major or large city as those over 100,000 people. Luciferwildcat (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should that happen to be true, you should be able to find a plethora of reliable sources for it. And I doubt Richmond is that major a city; keep in mind there are something on the order of 200 similarly-sized cities in the United States. Also, please not that at AN it has been affirmed that this nomination was not in bad faith Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can I just don't have the time, but I was able to do so for Harpreet Sandhu and can for this woman. If you as much as tried you could find sources, hopefully the ((recue)) can help with that. You doubt Richmond is a city over 100,000 people and that the US census defines that as a large/major city? That is disputed. There are hundreds of cities around the world with over a million people as well, so you present a false dichotomy. It smells like bad faith, especially when you argue against common sense and sources. Also that AN discussion is over let it go. Furthermore it's makes you look very bad when you insist people share your viewpoint the way you do and obsess over things.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks insufficiently notable to me. A one term mayor in the 61st largest town of an American state? Seriously? Bit worried by the unusual and aggressive tone of the Keep arguments here. Hint of sock puppetry in the air here. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment, California is the most populous state in the third most populous nation in the world, 61st still means over a hundred thousand, which in most states is one of the largest cities.LuciferWildCat (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's relevant why exactly? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was in response to your comment on this only being California's 61st largest city. In one word, perspective. Now how was it relevant to state that it was only the 61st largest city?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She sails past the WP:GNG due to the significant coverage she has received for her political roles since the mid 90s. That trumps all these arguments back and forth about her "importance" - not a factor we care about on Wikipedia. It's all about the sources, and she's received plenty of newspaper inches. It would make no sense to delete this biography. Fences&Windows 01:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN and no evidence has been provided of the alleged significant press coverage. Politicians are not auromatically notable and certainly not notable for something someone thinks they might have heard her say. Sionk (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "alleged", the coverage obvious to anyone who bothers to look at Google News. Fences&Windows 19:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the articles on that search you'll see the top two are not about Andreson but about her successor Gayle Mclauchlin. The 3rd one possibly shows Anderson pushed a controversial policy. Many of the remainder are behind a paywall, so it's difficult to comment on them. Notability requires significant coverage, over and above the normal mentions you'd expect during a mayoral term. Sionk (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She received coverage. Google news archive search has hundreds of results for her name and the name of the city she was elected to run. A mayor of a city of a hundred thousand people will get coverage. I see no reason to bother going through the various links, and trying to find one that isn't hidden behind a paywall. Dream Focus 12:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will again point out that just because Richmond has a population of a little over 100,000 doesn't make everyone associated with it significant. And if an person is significant, info about them shouldn't a) just be in small local papers and blogs; and b) not just be behind paywalls Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Carrite and others, there are concerns about this nomination and WP:BEFORE. Further, I see no theoretical possibility that this article would be outright deleted—it has an edit history with good faith edits, and there is no case to be made to delete the redirect. I found that the San Francisco Chronicle, a major regional newspaper, provides coverage of Richmond politics and has an accessible archive. This page has snippets that show relevant references. For the record, the first hit on this page states, "The incumbent is Irma Anderson, who became the first African American woman elected mayor of a major California city... Unscintillating (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, BEFORE doesn't necessarily have to be followed 100% of the time; especially in a fairly obvious deletion case like this where the subject fails two notability guidelines, POLITICIAN and ANYBIO. And what do the edits being in good faith have to do with anything? They don't...if a non-notable article is created with good faith edits, it can still be deleted. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you explain the 98 references I just provided from the San Francisco Chronicle? Unscintillating (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References my left foot. How many of them actually give the in-depth coverage about Anderson needed to establish notability? And more to the point, if this person is notable, how come you can't produce references that aren't local in nature? Oh, right, because she fails ANYBIO and POLITICIAN. Forgot about that Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I've commented about the dodginess of some of the same identical keep !votes here. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources exists. See Google News search link below.

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before yet another person points out how many Google hits this person has, they may want to re-read WP:PEOPLE, particularly 'Invalid criteria' which specifically says:

"Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking) ...for most topics search engines cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches... When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links. Sionk (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzing the quality, I see five different news sources on the first page of hits, every hit is more than trivial coverage = significant coverage, sources include Los Angeles Times, and National Public Radio. It would appear that this one page alone, just from looking at the snippets, establishes wp:notability by way of WP:GNG. Are you satisfied now that someone has evaluated the quality? Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, as when I did the GoogleNews search you had, I didn't get those. I got mostly Contra Costa Times. Put the links right here in the AFD. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And when I checked to see if the NPR source you speak of existed, I got a blank page, except for "For transcripts, go to NPR.org". Furthermore, you still haven't answered questions of whether this person passes the more applicable guidelines of POLITICIAN and ANYBIO, rather than the amorphous GNG Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have the answer those questions. If a topic meets WP:GN then all other criteria are irrelevant.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily true. Just because something meets GNG doesn't mean we have to have it. And I still maintain that this person is too trivial, and the references aren't in-depth enough from reliable enough sources, for this to be kept Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failing WP:GNG doesn't equate to a delete, it defaults to a merge. Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There isn't a good reason for a merge or redirect of this content. It should be deleted Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:28, 15 December 2011 (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. m.o.p 05:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Schmitt[edit]

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

Notability criteria not met Arbor8 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable. Unsuccessful candidate for state office; former CEO of a non-notable student organization; no significant news coverage. BTW I am deleting this article from the "list of California related deletion discussions". I can't find that he has or had anything to do with California; he is Rhode Island all the way. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2011 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure). Till I Go Home (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarks Beach[edit]

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

No references, no sources, no indication of notability. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 15:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I get 111 hits on gnews search for it. So, it probably satisfies WP:NPLACE because its existence can be verified through reliable sources. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Thanks for your research, Tom. For some reason, I had a hard time finding WP:NPLACE. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 16:19, 6 December 2011 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure). Till I Go Home (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Diary of Sacco and Vanzetti[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Article has no references, and no indications of reviews or critiques from notable sources. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 15:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep The article says that the film is a docudrama, and that it portrays a historically accurate account of Vanzetti's life. This is a subjective statement and without reliable sources that support this (I couldn't find any) there is not enough to stand on to have an article. I suggest that this docudrama be placed in the Film section of the article, Sacco and Vanzetti.--MLKLewis (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to the article by MichaelQSchmidt have made me change my vote - good job!--MLKLewis (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ and merge mention to the main article, per MLKLewis. No sources, no content, thus no article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent changes, I'm happy to change this to a keep. Well done! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What may have begun as an unsourced stub has, since being nominated, NOW become an ecyclopedic start class article that presents its topic in a neutral and properly sourced manner. I felt it best to see what I might be able to do before coming to this discussion, as it is never in the best interest of the project to delete notable topics if concerns are addressable. First screened in 2004, and though not worldwide in its scope or coverage, the film continues to screen seven years later... still receiving modest attention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Michael's excellent edits have pulled this article out of the quagmire. As there are other deletes, I don't feel comfortable in closing this AfD, but my concerns have been addressed. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 23:31, 6 December 2011 (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. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Connexus Ecosystem[edit]

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

Looks to be little more than an advert, my first instinct was CSD G11, but I wanted to be sure. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the page can be improved through editing, rather than deletion. Kelliott14 (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Patent nonsense: an affiliation of network vendors, communication service providers (CSPs), content providers and advertising networks promoting an architecture based on open and integrated solutions that facilitate the monetization of Over-the-top video (OTT) video services such as Netflix and YouTube... will enable service providers to dramatically increase their relevance in the OTT value chain by delivering high-quality monetized video to subscribers in a multi-screen mobile and fixed environment. It goes on in the same vein. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Removed associations mission statement, and reworded.Kelliott14 (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automark[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. Fails GNG. Appealcourt (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (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) 14:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a trace of any notability. Vincelord (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Araida Corbol[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Fails GNG. Appealcourt (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2011 (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) 14:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Vincelord (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2011 (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. Great lack of policy-based arguments, but a still greater lack of hard evidence for notability. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Mallet[edit]

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

How significant is this fictional character of Guiding Light? How influential is this character? How important is this character? Reliable sources, including of third-party and of independent, have not been found; even Google Books has his name in directory prints, which are not reliable at this moment. The news have not mentioned him for many years since his debut; even soap opera periodicals mention news about the portrayers' comings and goings. —George Ho (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was a long running character on the longest running scripted series in TV history. He is notable. Vincelord (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2011 (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) 14:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To have been a long running character on the longest running scripted series in TV history and yet not have gained enough coverage to easily deflect an AfD? Does nothing but add weight to the delete argument. Rubiscous (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Soft Keep. I take Rubiscous' point, but I feel this is a soft keep. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a recurring character for almost 20 years a significant character and is well deserving of an article. Mice never shop (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2011 (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. There seems to be a concenus that there are just enough sources to fulfill the GNG. We judge the notability of a topic against the sources that exist not the sources in an article; however, it would be best to add more sources so we do not need to rehash these arguments in a few months time. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maisie Williams[edit]

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

One role. Fails WP:ENT. Too soon. SummerPhD (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her single role has already attained significant coverage. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has a bare-bones place-holder at TV.com, a blog-ish entry on accesshollywood.com (i.e., web-only, not part of the show; an interview about the character, with no meaningful information about Williams), an interview in TV Guide (again, an interview about the character, with no meaningful information about Williams), a bare mention in the zaptoit blog and minor coverage in the Telegraph, calling it "a small part". Where is this significant coverage about Williams, the subject of this article? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is significant in sum total. A distinction between coverage of the character and the actress playing it, in the context of interviewing or describing the actress, isn't tenable. Even people who are highly notable for their professional status may have scant attention paid to their personal lives. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, saying that the TV guide interview [18] is "about the character, with no meaningful information about Williams" just isn't true. For example,

"I describe Arya as quite feisty, a tomboy," she says. "She likes to break the rules and doesn't really like being how everyone thinks she should be. I like playing outside and messing around. When I was in primary school my best friend was a boy and we always goofed around, climbed trees, got holes in my trousers and muddied all my tops and things like that, a complete nightmare for the washing, but great fun. I would always put a bit of Maisie into everything."

This material clearly pertains to the actress herself. I suggest examining the sources more carefully. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the reliable sources, we have: her birthdate, she had this one role and she likes to play around outside. I assume a biopic based on this is not yet in the works. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Comment The point is that her received coverage in reliable sources is what makes her notable. The fact that you're not impressed by her achievements is irrelevant. For An Angel (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing whatsoever to say about her achievement. Guidelines do not call for "coverage", they call for substantial coverage sufficient to write a reasonably detailed article. We do not have that. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per WP:TOOSOON to Game of Thrones. One role fails WP:ENT. Any coverage of her at all at this point is all for her first and only role in that series, making this a WP:BLP1E. A merge and redirect sends readers to the place where she can be written of in context to that one event for which she is receiving coverage. No prejudice against the redireect being reverted and the article expanded and sourced once her career advances and she has additional significant roles in multiple notable projects and the BLP1E no longer exists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, the (in)famous WP:BLP1E. It states that "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." However, an actress who appears in a nationally distributed television series has assumed the role of a public figure, who is high-profile by definition. BLP1E protects people against having notability thrust upon them through some unfortunate event, and protects Wikipedia against unremarkable people trying to thrust their notability upon us with publicity-seeking. Articles on such individuals would be inappropriate in either case. However, people such as actors/actresses on national television, politicians holding national or state offices of any sort, mayors of cities, and so on have stepped, legitimately, into the public arena. If we have enough material in RS for articles on such people, we should have the articles. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think all we need then is a source that states she is contracted or considered for another project and which speaks about her in that context to eliminate the BLP1E consideration. By our anticipating without sources that she would continue to have growing career past this one role we engage in prophecy, specially as there have been some great young actors who have had a terrific role and yet for various reasons did not continue in their careers. Admitedly, it is just as much crystal balling to assert her career will not advance as to assert it will, but as this is a BLP, and she a minor child, if we err it should be on the side of caution. And as a quite decent BLP1E that has potential to become more than one event, we have those guidelines and policies that instruct some of the ways in which to deal with such. As she is currently covered for just the one event, a merge and redirect protects the article history, preserves the information, and allows the redirect to be undone and the article returned and expanded and sourced if or when the career advances or she recieves sigcov for some other event. The public arena point is well made, but as a minor child, that choice of arena is by law more her parents'. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as author. The third-party coverage cited in the article is sufficiently detailed (though not by much) to be the basis of a brief article; WP:BIO does not require more. WP:BLP1E is inapplicable because, as mentioned above, all actresses are public figures whose notability derives from the roles they play and the coverage these roles receive. Sandstein 15:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, "From the reliable sources, we have: her birthdate, she had this one role and she likes to play around outside." If that's a "reasonably detailed" biography, I'm 39 1/2 feet tall. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets wp:BIO, although just barely. However, with season 2 of Game of Thrones coming she will receive more newspaper attention and no doubt additional sources will pop up. There are also several interviews with her [19][20], which do nothing for notability but could be used to flesh out the article. Yoenit (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or smerge There is nothing substantial to say about her, other than this one role. A redirect would send any unlikely searchers to the only thing notable about her. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin: Note that this user is also the nom, so should not be double-counted. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep & Comment Wiki traffic stats (try stats) show the page consistently generating 500–1000 views per day, and peaking at a monthly total of 27,000 hits during August 2011. That’s an awful lot of “unlikely searchers” and similar to, or more than for, many well-established artistes with long careers behind them; eg. from the same GoT cast; Charles Dance and Julian Glover. If you are meaning to imply that the entry is of no interest to people, the number of page viewings would clearly indicate otherwise. C-beams (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, and failing an SNG is not a sufficient cause for deletion. We don't need more biographical details to write on her: just because she's a person, doesn't mean a Wikipedia article necessarily needs all the elements of a traditional biography. In this case, she has great coverage for one role, so per WP:NPOV, we cover her based on how she's covered in the RS'es, which is as a well-received child actress. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, I've added two more independent, non-trivial RS'es discussing Williams. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, in addition to knowing her birthdate, she had this one role and she likes to play around outside, we know when (in relative terms) one scene with her in it was filmed and that the executive producers of the show like her. My neice's report on what she did this summer had considerably more depth. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per User:Alessandra Napolitano above. It may be only one role, but we know she is coming back for at least one more year, and it is a pretty key role in a blockbuster TV drama. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This key roll in this blockbuster seems to have drawn little attention. Heck, for such a huge, pivotal role Wikipedia has joined the reliable sources in having little to say about it. List of Game of Thrones episodes has this to say, "Ned leaves his home in Winterfell with his daughters Sansa and Arya..." and "...Sansa dreams of life as a queen, while Arya envisions a far different future." Nothing more. To be fair, Game of Thrones (TV series) mentions her twice: once (at Game_of_Thrones_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters) in a listing of five kids and again (at Game_of_Thrones_(TV_series)#Season_1) at the tail end of a list of cast members. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So why do you want her deleted, rather than her coverage in those articles expanded to match what RS'es say about her elsewhere? Arguing with every poster in an AfD who disagrees with your position doesn't generally help, at least as far as I've seen. You've said your peace, most people don't agree, and you yourself have modified your position from "delete" to "redirect or smerge". At this point, there are zero !voters arguing for deletion, yet this AfD is still open, vs. a merge discussion being conducted on a talk page. Why? Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources say virtually nothing about her, the subject of this article. (What they say about the character is not about her.) I "changed" to smerge after this AfD was closed and the closing admin decided to add a redirect. Someone cried foul (as the consensus was to delete). I was asked to comment in that regard when this AfD was re-opened. Redirects are cheap. You want to redirect a non-notable actor to their only role? knock yourself out. If you want an article about every actor who has one (apparently minor) role, a birth date and likes to play outside? That's something else. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is important here (at least to me) is that more coverage will be forthcoming, as that one role happens to be a recurring role on a critically aclaimed ongoing series attracting millions of viewers. If she had one role a decade ago and was not heard of since I would argue for merge, as wp:PERMASTUBs are a bad thing. However, Season 2 begins in April and some of the accompying coverage will focus on her, especially as her character plays a more important role in the story (10 Arya chapters in book 2, vs 5 in book 1). I am also curious what your opinion is on Isaac Hempstead-Wright. Is he suddenly notable because he had another role, even though information from reliable sources is just as limited as for Maisie? Yoenit (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the required substantial coverage "will be forthcoming", redirecting the article until that magical day arrives preserves the article's edit history, making reestablishing it a snap, once we have substantial coverage. I have no opinion here on Isaac Hempstead-Wright or any other article which may exist, as it has nothing to do with this situation. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see extensive discussion in many reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add it to the article? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TAPE system[edit]

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

One mention on a Chinese language marketing site (?), one primary reference. Still does not meet general notability guideline after former prod listing. Brianhe (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2011 (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) 13:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to suggest notability to me. Interesting that the article cites the fact that it is trademarked (which anyone can do) rather than patented (which would require originality). --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2011 (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 Soccer America and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Woitalla[edit]

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

The subject just seems to be a freelance writer/magazine staff writer, with no independent notability. The one reference doesn't appear to mention him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious conflict of interests between the main editor and the subject too. – Pee Jay 17:03, 29 November 2011 (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) 13:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soccer America, the magazine he is most associated with - a feasible search term but not notable enough for his own article. Giant Snowman 16:09, 10 December 2011 (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. Nobody has advocated keeping this as a stand-alone page. If anyone is actually planning to follow either of the other two suggestions, I'd be happy to userfy this so it can be used as a reference for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Key Honor Society[edit]

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

Non-notable college honor society. Only 1 chapter at McGill University. I'm sure it's very nice that being a member is the "highest non-scholastic honor bestowed onto a student at the University" but that's not enough to warrant a wikipedia article. No broader effect. No third party sources to establish notability, either. GrapedApe (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG; this organization exists at only a single university and has not clearly been established as notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Covert to category Category:Memebers of Scarlet Key Honor Society. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to McGill University. No need for a separate article or category about the members. Hopefully they are already listed at List of McGill University people. --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The reasons given for keeping are not part of policy: we're an encyclopedia , not a place to enourage particular groups--which amounts , actually, to promotionalism. I think Deor gave the right evaluation of the sources. DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Philanthropy Center[edit]

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

An organization associated with a single elementary school (Waples Mill Elementary School, Oakton, Virginia) that does not itself have a WP article. Of the five "references" listed, the first and fourth are primary sources, the third is a press release that mentions the school but not this particular organization, the fifth contains only some notices of workshops, and the second treats the organization as part of an article about a wider topic. All in all, I'm not finding the "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" that would be needed to satisfy WP:ORG. Deor (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generally, an elementary school is not considered notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article unless there are special reasons, and this is not even about an elementary school: it is about one project in an elementary school. Deor's description of the sources cited is a good summary. Not a single one of them gives the sort of coverage needed to establish notability. Everything indicates that the article has been created and edited as part of a promotional campaign for the "Children's Philanthropy Center". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while wishing them nothing but the best, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your kids' noble cause. This project just plain fails all our tests for notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable elementary school project. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to the possible deletion of this page. I am requesting to keep this page in Wikipedia. Please understand that although the center is housed in a school, it is a community-based/educational charity. CPC-sponsored activities are many and varied. They support many social and environmental charitable endeavors in Northern Virginia as well as across the country. CPC activities take place outside of school hours and during the summer. Their Youth Symposium is one-of-a-kind, run by youth for youth. The Wikipedia entry encourages youth to see that they can make a difference by becoming involved in a philanthropic program.72.205.31.32 (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the “Children’s Philanthropy Center” on Wikipedia. While the Center is technically housed at Waples Mill Elementary School, it is distinguished from the school division through an independent identity targeted toward community service and global giving programs to children from distressed circumstances. It is the only Center of its kind in Northern Virginia--run by children for children.

Due to adverse economic conditions, the Center is not yet able to afford a building of its own. It operates through the hard work and dedication of youth advocates throughout the county, as well as their mentors. No salaries or payments are given to support program operations.

Having the Children’s Philanthropy Center listed on Wikipedia allows individuals, environmentalists, social advocacy groups, and other interested parties to research the organization.

It also allows the youth advocates associated with The Center to feel a sense of validation for their support of individuals and other charitable organizations.72.205.31.32 (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with your arguments is that Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. It doesn't matter how noble the idea is or how much good it would or wouldn't bring, the subject of the article must be notable before inclusion into Wikipedia, not after. You have to provide reliable sources to prove that it's notable. I don't mean to sound harsh, but coming on here and making an emotionally based plea to keep it on Wikipedia won't accomplish much. You have to provide reliable sources per WP:RS to show that it passes WP:ORG. What might be a good option for one of your group to do is to get someone to sign up with a login and userfy the article. This means that you would keep it on a user page until it passes notability guidelines. If you do this, just be careful about potential conflicts of interest. (WP:COI) Sometimes when you are closely involved with the article's subject matter (in this case an organization), it's easy to stray outside the lines of neutrality and make it less encyclopedic than it should be. I highly recommend that if you are interested in this, you read up on the following subjects: WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, as well as check in with Wikipedia:WikiProject Education. That's a group of users who can be an invaluable source of information and help. This group might do good things, but it just doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Might be a great cause, but failes WP:GNG as a project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to figure out if putting this content as a User page would be acceptable. If so, please advise how we can move the content.YouthAdvocates (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not!!!! If you want to advertise this organization, go to a webhost, buy a domain and set up a website. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising or advocating any cause, however noble in intention; nor is it a directory of good causes. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I am confused. Tokyogirl79 made that suggestion four comments up. That is why YouthAdvocates inquired. Clarification needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsorama (talk • contribs) 18:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tokyogirl made the suggestion that a userspace draft article be created in a user sandbox. Advocates asked about putting the content into a userpage, which is for other purposes entirely. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Here's some coverage in reliable sources, perhaps more are available: Washington Post, The Connection. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those is already in the article (and was evaluated in my nomination), and the second doesn't constitute "coverage" by any stretch of the imagination. Deor (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus clear, although relatiely few pariticpants. And I agree: we normally delete sororities in only one or two campuses. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eta Iota Sigma[edit]

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

Non-notable sorority. Fails WP:ORG. Not a member of any national Greek conferences (like National Panhellenic Conference). Only 2 chapters in Texas. Basically a local club. GrapedApe (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minded to Delete per nom, but I am not sure what the benchmarks of notability are for a sorority - has this ever come up for consideration before? --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically a fraternity or sorority is notable if it is national in scope (i.e. has numerous chapters is multiple states), if it is a member of a recognized national umbrella organization (i.e. National Panhellenic Conference), or if it is profiled in Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, a fraternity/sorority encyclopedia. This organization satisfies none of those. --GrapedApe (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2011 (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. m.o.p 05:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attleborough Potters[edit]

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

Sunday league football club with no assertion of notability per WP:CLUB or WP:GNG. Can't find coverage of them online from WP:Reliable sources, apart from a few mentions in the local press, and no indication that they're notable nationally. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Filing Flunky (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Filing Flunky (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attleborough Potters in a NATIONAL newspaper. The last ever edition of the newspaper in July 2011 sold approximately 4.5 million copies.

Despite realising that the club is not an international superpower of football like a Manchester United or a Barcelona, it is the second most supported club in the town of Nuneaton, with higher attendances, fanbase, sponsorship and links to the local community than other clubs which you have permitted to have an article on wikipedia. The club has very strong ties within its local town, it's predecessor suffered financial problems forcing the village to lose its only club for the first time since the Second World War. This was more than a football team, this was the hub of village activity, so when the village lost its sporting focal point, due to popular demand, the club was reformed and reborn.

I would hope that "notable nationally" is not the only reason for your deletion notice, how much local and regional expertise, knowledge and information could be lost for the sake of not looking at the bigger picture? You guys don't know every intrinsic detail about every small town and village across the world, but the people that live there do and they wish to share their knowledge, history, heritage and information with the wider world by using the internet and using wikipedia.

Also please dont call the club, a sunday league football club, we have many teams, saturdays too and affiliations with junior teams and charity teams. This is a community club, not a generic park/pub football team.

Please list your onjections here and provide advice that will allow me to pass your criteria and I will gladly do all that is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that I meant no disrespect by calling your club a Sunday league club: it was the most concise description I could think of.

Regarding definitions, "notable nationally" isn't from my own definition of what's notable, but was lifted from WP:CLUB (emphasis mine):

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources.

Additional considerations are:

* Nationally famous local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead.

* Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.

Thanks for the NOTW link: that is indeed a national paper, though that particular article is only a passing mention of the team in conjunction with the award of a prize by the paper, and teams at the level of Nuneaton District Sunday League do not receive regular coverage in any UK national papers, so I'll leave it to other editors to decide whether that's incidental coverage or evidence of national notability for the team. Filing Flunky (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable club; hasn't played at a high enough level, also lacks significant coverage. Giant Snowman 13:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fchd.btinternet.co.uk/ATTLEBOV.HTM - Please see the link. Our towns club under its former guise was in the Midland Combination achieving promotion in its first season. Wikipedia already has a number of clubs on wikipedia that played at a similar level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 22 clubs from the Midland Combination that are represented on wikipedia. Attleborough also played at this level, what is the difference? Are Bromsgrove Sporting or Pilkington XXX nationally recognised footballing teams? I accept that we are not in the national newspapers regularly, but neither are many others, surely we should see some consistency... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed, Bromsgrove Sporting F.C. and Pilkington XXX F.C. should probably be nominated for deletion on the same grounds of notability. Filing Flunky (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why stop there? There are 22 teams at this level that aren't household names on a national stage or national scope. With that logic, why not just nominate all clubs outside of the national Premier League's for deletion? Attleborough has history that predates living memory and the club under its many guises would predate the vast majority of living persons. The fantasitc history and heritage or club and community sets this club apart. It's impact on a regional level is dramatic. Unfortunately, I doubt you are in a position to understand this, commenting and speculating without visitting but I welcome you to see for yourself any stage, this should give you a more informed point of view based on what is known and not what is assumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 15:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're arguing that "by excluding Attleborough, you should logically exclude everything outside of Premier League", then the counterargument would be "if you're including Attleborough, then you should include all football clubs, including school teams and company five-a-side clubs". Neither argument makes sense. A rough boundary of notability needs to be drawn somewhere for organisations, and it's a matter of WP:Consensus where the line is currently drawn. That's always open to debate, and the argument can always be made on a policy talk page: the pages on which to make that argument would probably be Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Filing Flunky (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that you are penalising Attlebrorough but not penalising similar organisations in similar situations. Your argument was that we hadn't played at a high enough level to be worthy of an article on wikipedia. I have provided proof that we have played at the same level as other clubs that already have an article on wikipedia. Instead of being petty and considering mass deleting numerous clubs to bring everyone into line, why not take logical and glaringly obvious step and bring allow my club to be represented on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for info, the Wikipedia football project has long used a rule of thumb that clubs who play at a level which makes them eligible to enter the FA Cup are notable enough for an article. This club has not played at such a level, even in its previous incarnation (assuming the two clubs are definitely one and the same). Hope this helps..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris, at least it seems you have a form of structure for your reasoning. However, I must add that Midland Combination clubs often feature in FA competitions. Also does the eligibility to post an article depend on league status alone? If a team got relegated and were no longer eligible for FA competitions would you mark their page for deletion? Also the clubs are not one and the same, Potters were formed to replace the void left by Village. Similar to when AFC Telford replaced Telford United and Nuneaton Town replaced Nuneaton Borough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only clubs from the top division of the MidComb are eligible for the FA Cup, not the lower divisions. And no, an article would not be deleted if a team dropped below that level - notability is not temporary. The only way in which a club which has never played at that level would normally have an article is if an exceptional level of coverage in reliable third-party sourced could be proven -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly do you need from me to get this article online? The club effects the region far more than many local clubs. How can that be proven? If I show articles in local news you guys will play the "national" card. If I show a NOTW article, it's not frequent enough. What you are asking me to prove seems unlikely to be found online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources found to meet the notability guidelines in WP:CLUB, per ChrisTheDude's reasoning. I'm afraid it is highly unlikely you will be able demonstrate notability from the sources available. Routine coverage of local clubs' fixtures in the local papers isn't enough - there would have to be an exceptional amount of coverage. Had there been more stories like the News of the World one, that would have counted, but a one-off mention is not substantial coverage. The only other thing I can suggest is that offline sources count just as strongly as online sources - it's just difficult to prove. But if there are not enough sources out there to meet the notability criteria, then Wikipedia is not the place for an article about this club. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you advise as an offline source? I can get written testimonies, video footage of local opinions and the clubs influence? Im getting lots of negative rejections but not a lot of people actually trying to be constructive and help to understand to see what the club is about, but assuming we're a "pub team" or "work 5aside" team from a screen far away from the region of influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.0.144 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, all sources, whether online or offline, needs to have some sort of editorial control, be independent of the subject of the article, and be objective and not subjective. Good offline sources are newspaper articles (if not already online) and books. Written testimonies and video footage are unlikely to have much weight (unless it was part of a publication/production by an independent body) any more than comments of forums of Facebook wall posts. The thing is, anyone can get 20 of their mates to say how important their favourite club or society is, but it doesn't prove anything. Attleborough Potters might be the most important non-league club in the West Midlands for all I know, but without coverage in reliable sources to back this up, any claims of what the cluib is about are unverified, and Wikipedia isn't the place for unverified information, no matter how certain the writer feels it is correct. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CLUB and WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no proof has been provided that this club is notable. There are plenty of football clubs actively involved in their community, but that doesn't necessarily make them worthy of coverage by a worldwide encyclopedia. As Chris Neville-Smith notes, one of the key requirements of Wikipedia is that information is verifiable, ad no verifiable information has been provided. If Chrisshipley believes that this club that has never played at a high enough level to be considered notable by the policies reached by Wikipedia they should look at Senrab F.C. or Wallsend Boys Club to see examples of clubs that are notable despite never having competed at such a level. This might help outline the type of evidence of notability that is required. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I checked Wallsend Boys Club and the referencing is pretty weak. Best tag it. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wallsend Boys Club .. to see examples of clubs that are notable despite never having competed at such a level. This might help outline the type of evidence of notability that is required. Wallsend FC"

Wallsend have two sources, one of them is there own website and one from their local county FA! I can give you a plethora of links from the clubs website and one from the NOTW, surely this superseeds what you have already passed as acceptable for another club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshipley (talk • contribs) 10:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I wrote "the referencing is pretty weak". I think that most editors would agree that Wallsend Boys Club is notable, but this does need to be proved with reliable sources. I suspect that these may be found, but not for Attleborough Potters. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slightly off-topic, but I've added some reliable sources to Wallsend Boys Club, including from BBC & Telegraph. A few of the new refs just mention that club in passing as where some famous footballers started out, but several are articles about the club. This is the kind of significant coverage that would support notability for Attleborough Potters. Filing Flunky (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2011 (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. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USTA Eastern[edit]

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

One of the 17 regional branches of the United States Tennis Association. Article based mainly on primary sources. Does not warrant a separate article. Could be merged if deemed a keep. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [another regional USTA branch article, even more poorly sourced]:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the info is pretty much an organizational hierarchy that only belongs on a website. If anything all the 17 regional sites can be listed on the main article site with a simple link to it's webpage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main parent article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The organization has its own history and its own programs, separate from the larger organization. It also has a number of historic figures in tennis and meets the Tennis and Notability guidelines. Geostory (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The organization cannot inherit notability from John McEnroe or other players it has had. What we need is independent sources that make the case why we need a separate article for this branch of the USTA. The USTA is obviously notable. But that doesn't imply that USTA Eastern needs its own article.

A lot of the sources mentioned in this article are taken from the organization's website. The remaining ones often mention USTA rather then USTA Eastern. Why do you object to merging this article as a section into USTA ? MakeSense64 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to a merge, except for the fact that the USTA article does not have any information about programs, as the USTA Eastern article does. Most of those could be merged into the USTA article, but a few are unique to USTA Eastern and should be retained because of their notability. Is that possible? Geostory (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page as it stands now cannot be merged into the USTA page... there is simply too much info. It says it is one of 17 such entities so we have to take into consideration that there will be 17 subsections to add to the main page. That is simply way to much stuff for one article. Now, board members and past presidents are not notable. The "Geographic Structure" is unique. Membership structure, other than maybe line one, is generic and can be cut... we don't need to know the fees for membership. The "organizational structure" may or may not be generic...I don't know how the other chapters work. Under "programs"... isn't this something that should only be on an official website? It's not encyclopedic at all and is mostly generic. I'm guess most of the 17 chapters do much the same thing and if some have a couple unique features that could be covered in a single paragraph. We could list all 17 in a table on the main page, link them to their proper websites, and leave room in the table for special items that are unique to that group. I realize this is a borderline issue but I feel this looks more like a pamphlet I get from Mormans when they come to my door in the evening. Informative yes, encyclopedic no. Now to play devils advocate, I was going to say there are bunches of chapters of the Elks Club or YMCA that don't merit or get their own space here... but I would be wrong as I see there is also YMCA of Greater New York. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Geostory. Yes, you can create a section in the USTA article with the purpose of covering regional branches and activities. Use it to mention the notable facts that are unique to each branch, and you will have improved the USTA article.

In support of your article, we can find cases where branches of big organizations have separate articles. For example you can find separate articles for each national Olympic committee, such as National Olympic Committee of Germany and National Olympic Committee of Albania. But it is more rare to find standalone articles for regional (as opposed to national) branches of organizations. There are exceptions when a regional branch satisfies GNG on its own merits. I think the current sources in this article are insufficient for that. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the internal structure of organisations is rarely notable. Most of the references seem to mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've pretty much kept to the rule that subnational branches of an organization are not notable, unless there's something exceptional: I think this articles is an illustration of why that;s a wise rule: there are no really distinctive activities, and most of it is just a promotional listing of officers and non-notable past preeidents. DGG ( talk ) 10:37, 13 December 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynsey McCullough[edit]

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

~~fails NTENNIS~~, no titles of any kind, no player record on the WTA tour site. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This player qualifies NTENNIS based on Fed Cup play, so I decided to withdraw this nomination. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has represented her country in Fed Cup which automatically qualifies as notable per Tennis guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I am wondering however if this is fair. A player in a small country can play Fed Cup (or Davis Cup), just because no better players are available. In this way a player who is not in the top 500 or even top 1000 becomes notable according to NTENNIS. In another country , say Russia, a player who is ranked nr 180 will never play Fed Cup and is thus not notable (unless he qualifies on other criteria). Maybe the NTENNIS criteria should be adapted a bit so that the player needs at least a certain ranking besides having played Fed Cup or Davis Cup. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but it was pretty tough getting agreements on what to include and not include. Trying to agree on a ranking cutoff could take a year if it happens at all. As it stands now ALL Fed Cup/Davis Cup and I believe Olympic players make the cut as far as tennis notability. Remember they are notable because they played in Fed Cup, not how they got there. Fed Cup is very notable as are all players who participate. You also have to remember that many players that are in any important WTA tournament draw are instantly notable. And every country gives wildcards to their own citizens, many of whom are inferior players. So this type of thing happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So it is something like the Faroe Islands national football team. The players gain notability just by virtue of playing in international match. The level of play does not matter.

I will withdraw this nomination. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, barely seems sufficiently notable. Lucky she plays in a weak tennis country. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:12, 7 December 2011 (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. according to the very clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tenisbrasil[edit]

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

fails NWEB, unsourced, article was created by a single-purpose account, appears to be self promotion. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with above. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2011 (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 G11 by RHaworth.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The White Leaf Hotel, Ahmedabad[edit]

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

Meets WP:NOTHOWTO as a travel guide. That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 09:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan King[edit]

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

Person of questionable notability, 2 references that aren't strong either. — Geelongnative (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator was identified and blocked as a sock of User:Jackjit.--Cavarrone (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: References appear to be too "local".DrakeNZer (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Vote changed, see below. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the two references is a primary source and the other one gives little information to support the whole of the article.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator and User:DrakeNZer are socks, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackjit. mabdul 21:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a muzic.net.nz review, he won the 2001 NZ Music Award, an interview with him, he was aired at Westdeutscher Rundfunk [21]. More will likely follow. mabdul 22:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He is multiple times in the APRA Top 100 New Zealand Songs Of All Time with Zed, Zed reunined(not that good ref), he was even in the Austrian charts fro two weeks, some news on amplifier.co.nz [22][23][24] mabdul 23:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this AfD should deserve a procedural keep as the nom is an identified and blocked sockpuppet and he tried (successfully) to address the current discussion voting with one another of his sock accounts. However, the subject passes WP:GNG as has some not-local-news coverage (as New Zealand Herald), and also not considering the sources, he easily passes WP:MUSICBIO, criteria 2 (as he has had a single or album on any country's national music chart), criteria 8 and criteria 11. He also passes WP:ANYBIO criteria 1.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There weren't references, and now there are. Changed vote, see above Stuartyeates (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stuartyeats. Bad case of groupthink. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Congratulations to User:Cavarrone for expanding this article. None of us are obliged to make this kind of expansion to an article before ((afd)). But I am afraid admonitions are in order for all the contributors who left early "delete" opinions. While we aren't obliged to fix articles before ((afd)), I think we are obliged to make sure we only leave informed opinions. Each of us should have done our own web search, prior to leaving an opinion. If those who left "delete" opinions had spent 30 seconds doing that web search they would have found what Cavaronne found -- that there were sufficient good references. Geo Swan (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A topic that merits coverage, due to WP:RS. Also, procedural keep due to sockpuppetry and deceit. Geo Swan (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under criteria G7 - author request. Kubigula (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Myrchents[edit]

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

"Editor" states this article was copied from userspace of a "retired" editor- see User_talk:Coin945#The_Myrchents_-_references_problem. (I tried to nominate for Speedy Deletion, using the misleading "other" option offered by Twinkle, but it was pointed out that this is not a correct CSD criterion). PamD 08:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. Coverage is only download sites and second hand album sales. Does not meet WP:BAND. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2011 (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. Very clear consensus. I am a little puzzled why it was even nominated. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voxel-Man[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Mythpage88 (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is stubby and subject is specialized, but it does seem notable. Per Visible Human Project, one of two commercial products developed to make use of the "detailed data set of cross-sectional photographs of the human body". Google Books search limited to 2005 or later shows 179 hits, mostly concerning surgical and advanced imaging techniques. 739 Google Scholar hits--I've added a ref to the Journal of the American Medical Association review of the subject. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage evident from a Google Books search, as was indicated when it was de-prodded.--Michig (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar turns up a lot of cites and a lot of them appear to be reliable, independent and secondary. Looks to me like there are sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Msnicki. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:10, 7 December 2011 (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. I tried to do a last-ditch search for sources, but I can only find mention of him as a writer or pieces he's written. Nothing that would satisfy GNG. m.o.p 05:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Keane[edit]

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

This article covers a former Australian public servant who now covers federal politics for the Crikey email and website. The article has no references other than his profile at Crikey, and a Google search of his name doesn't produce any references which are useful for establishing notability - all that turns up is stories he's written and single paragraph profiles of him for conferences and the like at which he's spoken. None of these references state that he's won any major awards. As such, I don't think that WP:BIO is met, particularly as this article falls under WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's had 11 references in The Australian so far this year. 4 in the Daily Telegraph, a few references in Sydney Morning Herald, he's notable enough I think, even if you don't think much of Crikey these days. While he's a retired public servant, a search of Hansard shows his Crikey articles too are occasionally quoted so I think there's no need to delete this article. He's one of the more notable political journalists in Canberra, even if he's unpaid. --Brandonfarris (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff he's written being referred to by other journalists and politicians doesn't constitute the 'significant coverage' of Keane as a person which is needed to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete - I just don't think it is enough. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and well-known political journalist, plenty of sources. Rebecca (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Rebecca, could you please post these sources? While I've read many of Keane's articles in Crikey, I've never seen anything significant written about him specifically. Happy to be proven wrong though. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyranahorse[edit]

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

Rock band of questionable notability. Some local reviews, but little significant coverage. Google search shows mainly primary sources and social media. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete -- I think it is not notable for me but its a very little coverage. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band is new and has not yet (?) had the coverage to meet wp notability requirements Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment nb. Wikipedia:Notability (music) requires that the band 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works'. I can't find any more than 2 reviews in the wp article. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Perhaps just enough coverage to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dcoetzee 07:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - questionable notability; appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and Wikipedia:General notability guideline due to the general lack of coverage. If the band has more profound impact and coverage in the future, the inclusion of the article could be justifiable. Chris (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are way too weak on deleting non-notable bands. I am making a stand. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (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. While consensus is not 100% to keep, it's good enough. This discussion has been open for four weeks. It's time to move on here, nothing to see. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian Law Teachers Association[edit]

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

I can find nothing notable about this organization aside from "it exists". I've looked for verifiable, third party references and found none of any merit. Lithorien (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, will be blocking author momentarily for username violation. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I am surprised that anyone would say that this article deserves deletion. What is not notable about a professional association that represents law teachers in universities all over Australia? I concede that the quality of the article needs improving. As far back as 1996 a conference of this organisation was addressed by Michael Kirby, a Justice of the High Court of Australia (the most senior court in Australia). It has been reported on by Reuters, one of the most reputable news services in the world. There are numerous references to the ALTA at the Australian National Library. For example this one reporting on the 46th conference in 1991! This article should be allowed to improve.--Greenmaven (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just have to make a comment here. You bring up sources that are supposed to be reliable and notable, but the Reuters link is just an, "I went there, it was nice," article, and the listing in the library was created by the ALTA themselves. It's just some papers presented at one of their conferences. In addition, if the article has such strong merit, why are there only two citations, both of which point to resources created by the association itself? Where are the reliable third party sources? The entire article reads like an advertisement and the only reason I didn't ask for a speedy delete under A7 was in the hope that someone could find reliable sources and save the article... and nobody's stepped up yet. But please, feel free to improve it if there are reliable, third-party sources you can find! -Lithorien (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're looking for reliable sources then try checking the many hundreds found by the Google Books and Scholar searches spoon-fed by the nomination process. They are linked in the expectation that nominators of, and participants in, AfD discussions will use them to inform their opinions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I agree with the comments above. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , just as we normally do for all national or international level professional associations that are the principal one in the subject field.. It can be difficult getting the usual sources, but they're always findable if adequately looked for.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dcoetzee 06:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Relisted. The question of existence of reliable sources remains open and merits further investigation. Dcoetzee 06:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just a blog, but this notes the 64th ANNUAL CONVENTION of this scholarly association and journal publisher. Deletion here would do nothing whatsoever to improve the encyclopedia. Use common sense, which is what Ignore All Rules means. Carrite (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's not what IAR means... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [25][26][27]. Most of the 700 hits on google books merely namedrop their convention, but there is enough material out there to establish notability. Yoenit (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep. It has a weird smell about it, but I can't see a reason to justify deletion. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:05, 7 December 2011 (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. It's a pretty firm rule that reader reviews and personal testionials do not count towards notability. If anything, that an article relies on it proves the intent is promotional, and that seems also to be admtted in the afd discussion. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stillpower[edit]

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

Notability; while I find a reasonable number of blog mentions, I'm not finding the sort of significant mentions that would meet WP:NBOOK; the only two gnews hits were press releases. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book is noteworthy due to its subject matter, an alternative to the conventional method for preparing mentally for participation in sporting events. Sports are a significant aspect of our society, physical and mental preparation is an essential part of success in any sporting event, it therefore creates considerable interest and discussion. The external notoriety of this book centers around it’s author and the repeated requests he receives to discuss it’s concepts on national sports talk shows. As a sports consultant and published author Garret Kramer is often asked to comment on sports stories that relate to the mental preparedness of athletes. Publications such as Sports Illustrated,^[1] The Wall Street Journal,^[2] and New York Times^[3] have referenced his opinions on sports psychology. Kramer is a featured and frequent contributor to sports talk radio and television shows on WFAN in New York, ESPN Radio, WOR (AM),^[4] CBS Radio Network,^[5] FOX and CTV Television Network. Steveswei 04:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswei (talk • contribs)

You seem to be making the argument that the book is notable because its author is notable, If you review WP:NBOOK, you'll find that the only ways that qualifies in the criteria is if the "author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes." That seems unlikely in this case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed here to show notability is 3rd party substantial reviews of the book in reliable independent sources ; they're the usual secondary sources needed. Do you have them? DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, hopefully I understand. The page has been edited to give a brief description of the book, written in my own words, that expresses the uniqueness of its content and how it differs from conventional athletic coaching techniques. In addition references are given to reviews by notable athletes and authors (all with Wikipedia Pages) that have commented on the uniqueness and successes of the approach outlined in the book. Thank you for working with me on this matter.Steveswei 21:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswei (talk • contribs)

I appreciate you trying to address this. However, off the references you added, only the first would appear to carry any weight in regards to notability. Of the remaining three, one is from the book's introduction, and the other two appear not to be from published reviews but are simply blurbs, the sort of thing that are meant to advertise the book. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is all that I have got. I understand what you are saying but there must also be some consideration to that rule. All I was trying to do was share the information about a book that has changed the lives of thousands of people. I know the difference that form of thinking has made in my life and I think others could benefit from it as well. If that is not deemed noteworthy, then I guess it will probably go away. I can’t think of any other way to amend it. Thanks. Steveswei 15:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswei (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use Wikipedia frequently and decided I want to participate for the first time when I saw this page was noted for deletion. This book along with it's concepts has made a significant shift in my life and I would recommend it to others, I would like to see the page remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahgarris (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Just saw this link in the serps and wanted to weigh in if you are considering deleting this, please reconsider. I consider the content in this book vital information for parents and coaches by offering a revolutionary approach for athletes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.156.172 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dcoetzee 06:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly we haven't yet found the reviews in national newspapers that would answer this AfD instantly. What we do have is a set of reviews written by independent individuals - including WP readers-who've-never-edited - who much admire Stillpower, and in some cases write that their lives have been changed by the book. It is obvious that the rules say No Blogs, Only the Biggest and Best Newspapers, WP:N, WP:GNG, etc etc. Only, my alarm bells are ringing here. "Be Bold". "Ignore all Rules". We have decent ordinary people who have a) found this book transformative, and b) taken the time to write about it on their own websites. Words to Run By; Running, Loving, Living; Forward Foot Strides. This book is of genuine encyclopedic interest. It has been genuinely well reviewed by ordinary folk. We are entirely at liberty to keep it in Wikipedia. We should. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we start accepting everything that at least three people have blogged about, there is little on this earth that will not be considered "encyclopedic". And we have cautions about giving weight to the input of never-before-editing users in deletion discussions with good reason. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Added to note: the sites you link to are not random people who have read the book and were moved to write about it - they are people who the author selected and sent review copies to in order to get a review. This is not the sign of some popular backing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2011 (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. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Sanchis Cortes[edit]

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

I've found it quite difficult to determine if there's any notability here. There certainly aren't any citations, and there's an extremely bloated reference list - and there's some lurid prose which I found to be gorgeous, if the truth be told. I've copied the text already for my pleasure - there's some surreal beauty here, for sure. I just don't think it's encyclopedic. I would be grateful for the opinions of other editors. Colon el Tom 11:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this was already nominated for deletion shortly after creation 29/07/11 - it looks like it was then moved to the current title. Colon el Tom 11:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Colon el Tom 11:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Colon el Tom 11:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related

deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Sanchis Cortes is an internationally known author in Spain and the rest of the world. If you read the books with ISBNs arguably everything written in wikipedia. No pompous to say it has made in each year of his life, the years that has formed is influenced by whom. It is a reality. You only have to call Scultrade Art (0034) 918 298 759 and ask for references from him to know he is international. Here are his works http://scultradeart.com/tienda-e-inversiones/scult-30/francisco-sanchis-cortes-6/

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. We simply don't have any reliable sources with which to verify the article content. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would recommend that supporters of this article work on putting it into a more standardized Wikipedia style, preferably with in-line citations. In addition, the article needs to be better focused. For example, the discussion of John Locke's Two Treatises of Government is of doubtful relevance in an article about a 21st century painter. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation for drastically editing the page - The article as it stood / will again stand is uncited. Since I nominated the page for AfD, users have made multiple edits - but not one of those edits have made the artist appear notable IMHO - not one cite has been provided. I'll let my edit summary explain my motives for blanking - "I deleted the unreferenced and unsupported claims. Yes, that's the entire article. If you want this article to not be deleted, PLEASE use citations and NPOV language when restoring. Put simply, Make this fit wikipedia's rules and it might be kept." (I apologise for not trying to whip it into shape - if it passes this AfD, I'll put some effort into translation to English, but not before it's clear that the effort won't be wasted.) Colon el Tom 10:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged all the paintings in the article as copyright violations on commons. Yoenit (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete, per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wading through the gallery links brings up very little third-party coverage of the subject. This piece is a very generous critique of his work, but I can't tell much regarding the author's reliability, and the website presents itself as "the first company devoted to intermediate between artists, investors and customers". There is also this article from the Archdiocese of Valencia about two paintings that Sanchis donated to them, which isn't exactly independent, and lastly he was given a diploma by the Rotary Club [28], though the article doesn't specify the reason. A couple of blogs posts I saw left me with the impression that he might garner further coverage in the future, but as of now notability is not met — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2011 (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. Sandstein 16:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Enigma of the Warwickshire Vortex[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Ridernyc (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete. I can't see any basis for notability, but the article is awful, and it is not really my field. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- Suggested Merge With Non-canonical_Sherlock_Holmes_works It looks like someon trying to promote a book that didn't do very well the first time it was published. That being said, It is also referenced in anoother book, "The Alternative Sherlock Holmes: pastiches; parodies and copies. that you can find on google http://books.google.com/books?id=DBGn5AkrI40C&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=the+enigma+of+the+warwickshire+vortex&source=bl&ots=cutPsPUNAs&sig=twWHM8AVgfiXaYyZfLp3GRM1G_c&hl=en&ei=vqLiTq3IOoOUgweVxd3fBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=the%20enigma%20of%20the%20warwickshire%20vortex&f=false. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2011 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventure of Exham Priory[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Ridernyc (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a short story. Redirect to Shadows Over Baker Street. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2011 (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. I don't think we agree on the standards for these Alumni Associations. DGG ( talk ) 10:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Washington Alumni Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Prod removed with no improvement or justification. All universities have alumni associations and there is no indication of special coverage of this one. TM 17:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The last statement by the nom. is not a legitimate reason to remove the article; university associations don't require uniqueness or "special coverage" in order to satisfy the Wikipedia notability requirements. In this sense they are much like college football teams. Failing WP:GNG is another matter. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps special coverage is the incorrect term. I mean coverage by standard local newspaper stories and self published sources.--TM 23:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— Dozens of university alumni associations have pages on Wikipedia. This is the only one that's been flagged for deletion. The UW Alumni Association is the oldest of its kind on the West Coast, and is affiliated with a major research university. User:gmfland 29 November 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, many alumni associations have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UConn Alumni Association, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn Alumni Association and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Exes as but a few examples. Besides other stuff exists, it is affiliated with something notable, it is old are not reasons to keep an article. gmfland, I noticed that the UW alumni association is the only article you have edited; I suggest you look more into the guidelines before arguing for or against inclusion.--TM 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dcoetzee 06:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we remove the text that is only supported by primary sources, then not much is left. Does not warrant a separate article. Why not merge it into a section in the University of Washington article? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Non-commercial academic entity that publishes a magazine with a circulation of 200,000, give or take. So the sources are primary, verifiability is no issue here. Carrite (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you saying that Columns, the alumni magazine, should count towards GNG? It is definitively not independent of the university or the alumni association. Where are the in-depth independent sources needed to keep it?--TM 12:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that after being held over TWICE, I'm not seeing a lot a fury in favor of deletion of this piece about an Alumni Association on the basis of narrow interpretation of Wikipedia inclusion guidelines, that the encyclopedia is better with this article than without it, that as publisher of a large circulation glossy magazine there is a likelihood of interest on the part of Wikipedia readers, that there is no question about the veracity of the basic content of this article, and that it should be therefore kept under the Wikipedia policy of WP:IAR. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IAR as a deletion argument? That's weak, man. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main university article: Not independently notable of the university itself. To say that it has circulation of 200,000 merely says that there are 200,000 people affiliated with the school. Alumni rags are automatically sent out to all alumni, faculty, and parents of current students. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - tough call, but I think overall it is a soft keep. If it was a magazine with a circulation of 200,000 it would get kept. I also don't fancy the house keeping of deleting all the other alumni association entries if it is deleted. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every university's alumni association sends out tens if not hundreds of thousands of "magazines" unsolicited as a fundraiser. Is junkmail really an argument for keeping the article? What do you mean in your second sentence? Many alumni association articles have been deleted and I am sure Auburn's association sends out tons of junk mail as well.--TM 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trim to two paras and a link to their home page and merge to Category:University of Washington alumni. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Pink Panther cartoons. The mergers have it; the keeps don't cite policy. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Pest Control[edit]

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

Articles about individual episodes/shorts of the pink panther. They were nominated for AFD previously with a result of redirect all, but an editor thinks that that may apply only to some other episodes, but not these. Renominating in the spirit of cooperation, and to ensure consensus.

The series is clearly notable, however indivdual episodes are not (imo), all articles have the same content, and same references, except for a 1 or 2 line plot summary.

Original AFD discussion : Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Le_Cop_on_Le_Rocks

(will add links to similar articles) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be other articles as well, I will hunt and find them. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - please see discussion for and against retaining here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Le_Cop_on_Le_Rocks. Oanabay04 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically every article in this category : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pink_Panther_animated_film_series Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain I think the Pink Panther articles should be retained, but they also need to be expanded upon. At present, a great many have just the basics and are stub articles. All the other series' (Inspector, Ant and Aardvark, Misterjaw) do not need their individual entries, as they are far less notable.Tomatosoup97 (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Agreed with Tomatosoup97. The Ant and Aardvark and Inspector series do not need separate entries (except for perhaps the first entry in each series. The Pink Panther's, on the other hand, weew quite significant. In addition, many of them are stub articles, which, by definition, mean that they need to be developed further. Rather than Redirecting all the PP entries (I'm talk to you, Gaijin42), develop and add to the articles. If this how the entries are viewed, then start redirecting all Tom and Jerry, Looney Tunes, Woody Woodpecker, Three Stooges, etc.Oanabay04 (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I think that all of those likely should be redirected. Yours are just the ones I stumbled across via the aardvark/inspector issues. However, WP:OTHERSTUFF. I dont see how these episodes can be anything other than stubs, ever. Nobody was writing critical essays or books or articles about individual episodes. Any reviews that were done (if any) are likely lost forever. the only references you have (or likely will ever have) are about the entire series. If individual eps won an emmy or oscar, then that individual ep can stick around, but the 100+ ones certainly didnt all win awards and all get critical notability.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is how the separate entries are viewed, the redirect all but the notable entries for every other series—both theatrical and television—that has separate entries:

Bugs Bunny
Daffy Duck
Tom and Jerry
Woody Woodpecker
Laurel & Hardy
Seinfeld
The Simpsons
Mickey Mouse
Donald Duck
Pluto

I am not following how the Pink Panther series is any less notable than those listed above. Admittedly, some Panther entries are less notable, and currently, there is only one authoritative book on the subject.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. I am starting here. I think very likely those other pages should be merged or redirected. Perhaps I will do that. The end result of what happens to those pages has no bearing on what happens to these pages. Pink panther itself is very notable. Nobody is contesting that. You have just admitted that the episodes are not, and there is only one source that covers all of the episodes. If individual episodes are notable, break them out. But what is the value in having the same page duplicated 100 times with just a 2 line summary difference? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of The Pink Panther cartoons. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unless there is secondary sourcing establishing that an episode of television is significant in some manner, to my mind said episode does not merit its own article. Doniago (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2011 (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. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Nawawi[edit]

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

Non-notable Internet personality. Single source does not meet notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the subject in question violates WP:MEMORIAL. Till I Go Home (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Errm, her claim to significance seems to be that she died, and that various people are sad that she died. I think Speedy delete is by no means out of the question. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Vincelord (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not notable. Unibond (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2011 (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. Sandstein 17:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V.J. Manzo[edit]

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

Promotional (and possibly autobiographical) article of an individual of questionable notability. Article creator (Merlingoth88) appears to be Manzo himself - see his Twitter account, blog profile, and Facebook page. While heavily referenced, the majority of the references are to primary sources, linking to Manzo's personal websites or to organizations created by and/or affiliated with Manzo. A Google news search on "V.J. Manzo" shows no significant coverage. Standard search shows a plethora of primary sources, but little that could be called significant coverage. Appears to fail both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:MUSICBIO. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just waded through all 58 references given in the article. The vast majority is a collection of primary sources. The only ones remotely relevant to notability are several student awards (without secondary sources and of dubious notability themselves), an Independent Music Award (ditto), articles in his university's student newspaper and alumni newspaper, respectively, and possibly a mention in the book Music therapy education and training which I don't have access to. With the possible exception of the one source I cannot read, none come close to showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, and the quality of the other sources used to support the same claim as that one does not inspire confidence. He fails both the general notability guideline and, for a lack of sources, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ACADEMIC. The author has replied on Talk: V.J. Manzo and disagrees, claiming it is a good article. Huon (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for wading through these many references. As we both mentioned on this and the general Talk page, the majority of these references are to sources by Manzo. However, as you note, there are some primary sources in there. For example, two scholarly academic books: "Goodman, K.D. Music Therapy Education and Training: From Theory to Practice. Charles C. Thomas, 2011" and "Miller, E. Bio-Guided Music Therapy: A practitioner’s guide to the clinical integration of music and biofeedback. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2011" are primary sources. The IMA award Manzo won in 2007 is certainly, as Huon noted, another primary source. Many of the additional sources, many of which are academic journal articles and website news items should be counted toward keeping this page from deletion as they support the claims that Manzo is a notable individual whose research has made an impact. His own works which are referenced present his own unique research which has been accepted largely by the academy as is indicated by his publications, most notably a college text book published by Oxford University Press. This book, which I have read, also references his own unique work and further supports claims to his notability, at least as an academic if not an artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlingoth88 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Merlingoth88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Miller's book is not a secondary source. Instead, it contains an essay written by Manzo himself. Merlingoth88 may want to read up on what primary sources are and why we should not base articles on them. I have yet to see any work by another person referring to Manzo's scholarly articles. Publishing books and articles, even at Oxford University Press, does not establish notability; what we'd need would be other people writing about Manzo. Outside his university's student and alumni newspapers and possibly that one book which is not available at my local library, that seems not to be done. The sources given for the impact his research supposedly has made are the last seven, in order: The website of a research project by Manzo, Miller's book with a Manzo essay, the Goodman book I can't read, two personal blogs which mention Manzo, and a Brazilian creative dance (?) article which mentions Manzo's name, but does not quote him nor lists his work among its references. For all I can tell it's not itself published in a scholarly journal; it seems to be hosted by the author's university. The one-line mention of his name in an unpublished article which otherwise tells us nothing about Manzo or his work is the best of the six I can read. Somehow I doubt the one source I cannot read is so much better than the rest. Huon (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I request that the article be removed from the deletion cue as it was a few days ago so that I, and presumably others, may continue to add secondary sources such as interviews in reliable periodicals and academic publications. I assume these are in existence though I haven't referenced them. I do appreciate the effort you've made in clarifying this for me, and would appreciate time to improve this article without its deletion pending. Merlingoth88 (talk)Merlingoth88 —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The deletion discussion will run for a week. That should suffice to show the existence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Huon (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeah, I'm afraid I'm still in favour of deletion. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did he develop " Max/MSP/Jitter". I see from worldcat there are a number of publication on it besides his book? It would seen that the software has notability , even though he might not. DGG ( talk ) 10:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can't tell who developed Max/MSP/Jitter, but it's probably not Manzo. Manzo's book on that subject is available at Google Books, and the book's acknowledgements contain a note of thanks to the "numerous Max developers and artists throughout the world". Sounds like a collaborative project to me. The cycling74 website which offers Max for sale says it has been in use for over 20 years - if Manzo were the developer, he would have been younger than nine at that time. Given the level of detail in which we know Manzo's every accomplishment, I doubt we'd have missed him being a child prodigy. Huon (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2011 (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. Reliable sources have been found. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTER[edit]

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

This article does not meeet Wikipedia notability guidelines, has no references, only a single line of text and no explaination of the topic it covers. I therefore think it qualifies for deletion. Anjwalker ^Talk 04:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's mentioned in reliable sources [29] [30] [31], and statewide government agencies are normally notable. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article is kept, it should probably be moved to the spelled-out version of the name. It also needs more content; it's almost a WP:CSD#A3 candidate for speedy deletion due to its lack of content at this point. I'm not going to tag it for speedy deletion, but I can imagine that some editors might do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is awful, but an Energy regulator in a Federal Australian territory is a sufficiently notable office. Agree with Metropolitan that it should be moved to the fully spelled out name. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alessandra. --99of9 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the discussion appears to have reach a conclusion, could an administrator please close and review this?. Anjwalker ^Talk 10:49, 13 December 2011 (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. Inadequate sourcing for notability DGG ( talk ) 10:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saperion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence Saperion has been subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works in reliable independent sources, or otherwise met the criteria for notability per WP:CORP. First reference cited doesn't mention company at all; second is a trivial reference in list of vendors. Article was AfDed with result Delete in 2005, but has been recreated. Flagged for notability since November 2007. Propose Delete. DGaw (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references and sources either don't mention the company or are trivial. Needs more than this to show notability. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just not notable enough. Wikipedia is not free advertising. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another one of these: ....has been developing software solutions for Enterprise Content Management (ECM) systems, that brings archiving, document management and workflow functionality together in one system. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2011 (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. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All It Took Was a Miracle[edit]

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

PROD removed. Not notable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails the WP:NBOOKS guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable self published book lacking GHits and GNews of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is blatantly promotional, and the summary is copied directly from Amazon. —Insanity Incarnate^Talk 04:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the copyvio -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It will take a miracle to save this article. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attempt at showing notability. Nothing on gnews for author. Some blatant advertising. Still, I feel as though I just shot Bambi's mum. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only notability is that the advert is still in the article.
Think it's cold enough for a snowball - Arjayay (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2011 (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. Lack of substantial 3rd party reliable sources, reviews in particular; Full reviews are the uusual way to document notability for consumer software. DGG ( talk ) 10:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magican[edit]

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

Non notable software. Prod contested by creator Gaijin42 (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete the title. I've not looked at the article and thus won't comment on it, but this is an easy typo and consequently a good redirect for Magician. Nyttend (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Or to MagiCans. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not a typo of either, that is the actual name of the software. Voting on an AFD without reading the article is bad form. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not at all what I meant. I am not offering an opinion on whether this article should be kept or deleted. I'm saying that "Magican" should not be a red link — if the article deserves to be deleted, we should recreate the title as a redirect to magician, because people who mean to type "magician" can easily make a typo and write "magican" by accident. That's why I said "don't delete the title" instead of "keep", because the only thing that matters to me is the continued existence of a blue link at "magican". Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete the title. Since this is the first time we edit article on wikipedia and much place we need for improvment. But we have spent plenty of time to complete this article. So please keep it for us as we will try our best to improve it. any suggestion, please feel free to let us know. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmadesa (talk • contribs) 08:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Emmadesa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Don't delete . By the way, please allow me to explain that Magican is the name of a software, and it is quite different from Magician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmadesa (talk • contribs) 08:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Emmadesa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment:Please do not vote twice. If you have to make a comment, please phrase it with "comment" rather than by stating again for it not to be deleted. As far as not deleting it goes, you have to show that Magican meets notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete for lack of clear Notability. Is there any website that isn't magican.com that discusses this software? Any news outlets, web or otherwise, that review or discuss the software? If not, then we cannot keep this article. I also concur with Nyttend; the title may be a useful redirect to Magician, if consensus falls to deletion. I'd ask that the closing admin keep that as a suggested outcome, if and when. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or convert to redirect for Magician. Not fussed either way. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the title, "Magican" is the name of our software which definitely can not be changed. For other sources, we did offer the third web discussion of this software in the content of Comments from Major Sites, please take a check. And in the future, we will offer more discussion from other websites.

Delete, existence of the software on shareware sites is not evidence of notability. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, additionally, persistent use of the first person plural indicate that editor may be in violation of WP:COI. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not delete~~ Please kindly inform what kind of website could be the evidence of notability. Thanks. And for the "use of the first person plural", we will reedit to have it fixed. Please help to keep this article. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmadesa (talk • contribs) 03:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please read Wikipedia:RS and Wikipedia:Notability. Also, please note, you only get to vote once in a deletion discussion. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If someone wants to redirect to Magician (as a misspelling) after the deletion, they are free to do that. There is no need to have irrelevant junk in the edit history. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please leave your comment after you have completely finished reading the article, as being mentioned several times,Magican is the name of a software, it has no relationship with Magician. I'm puzzled Why Magician is refereed repeatedly. By the way, even if you do not like this article,you can not address it to be JUNK. This is wikipedia, a Polite place.

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Already done by Nyttend. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Schoch[edit]

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

I am unable to find any independent coverage in reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this pastor. There are a few trivial mentions, but I couldn't find anything non-trivial. I prodded the article and the article creator removed the prod without discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No references nor any significant coverage by reliable sources. A quick search of Google shows no reliable sources related to the subject. -- Luke (Talk) 02:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. The article is also copyvio from the Faith Broadcasting Network website with minor modifications. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious biased writer. I could not any reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. Up Tack (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio, no RS. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted under A7. Nyttend (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2011 (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. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lee (musician)[edit]

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

Declined Prod. Prod Reason was "Uncited stub article about musician of dubious notability." Prod decline was "alleges he was a band member in notable bands; rv prod". Notability is not inherited. Subject participated as a backup member (Non-headlining) in notable bands, but has not distinguished themselves individually. Questionable on the WP:MUSICBIO account. Hasteur (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above; no evidence to suggest that the subject is actually notable at present. As Usual, however, note that it's early in this person's career, and it's possible that they might become notable in the future; in that case, an article might be warranted. Not yet, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the nominator who notified me about this AfD. I removed the proposed deletion because, the article states that the subject "has played in numerous projects including Filter, Theory of a Deadman, Loser," etc. That would be enough to pass bullet # 6 in WP:BAND, which states the subject "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." However, upon further review, the assertions are not verifiable. He was not considered a member of Filter, and Charles Lee Salvaggio was a fill-in for tours by Theory of a Deadman. He is not listed on the website for Loser. Having done my research, I have to conclude that he's not notable. Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Looks plausible on the face of it, but doesn't amount to much w/r/t notability, once you try to find sourcing to really back it up. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. hoax DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 1956 tornado outbreak[edit]

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

This seems to be a hoax. All but one of the counties in the tables are fake, and most of the cities are also redlinks. The article is unreferenced, and there are no references to be found. The Tornado History Project doesn't show any tornadoes in either Kansas or Nebraska during February 1956. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would suspect that all other contribs by this editor are, too. See Special:Contributions/HavalJamal12. • Freechildtalk 03:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, the other article that editor started, June 1860 Mid-Mississippi Valley tornado outbreak, is a real event per the NOAA, though it's also unreferenced and some of the facts appear to be wrong. They also seem to be persistently adding Fujita scale ratings to tornadoes which happened before the scale came into use, though most of that has been reverted by now. I'm not sure what's going on with this user. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His hoax articles are better than many "real" ones FWIW. If someone can flip this kid from the Dark Side he could be a benefit to Wikipedia.LoveUxoxo (talk)

Delete and infinitely block HavalJamal12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for perpetrating this sneaky vandalism. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. If I knew that specific code for speedy deletion (Zed X-Ray Puppy Chow?) I'd suggest that too. Indefinitely block User:HavalJamal12 and his immediate family, the fine them 5 Drachmas. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. I also looked at both this and June 1860 Mid-Mississippi Valley tornado outbreak, and came to same conclusion as TheCatalyst31. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2011 (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 Boeing 247. Project consensus, as represented in WP:N and its subpages, is that inclusion as a standalone article is dependent on coverage in reliable sources. The "keep" argument by Dream Focus and Tarheel95 does not take this into account and submit that all aircraft crashes are notable. Such arguments are ungrounded in policy (see WP:ITSA) and are therefore discounted for the purpose of assessing consensus. Sandstein 16:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Cheyenne test crash[edit]

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

Declined PROD. No comment was made when the prod was declined beyond "adding ref" - but that doesn't address the PROD at all. Prod reasoning: "Completely non-notable accident. Did not occur in revenue service; no lasting impact; no continuing coverage." All of which still apply. In the 1930s, aircraft - including airliners - cracked up regulary during test flying; this is no different than any number of other crashes. While it technically meets the standard of WP:AIRCRASH (the relevant notability essay) for inclusion in the Boeing 247 article, it has a complete failure of WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Though deserves expansion of a line or two. Checkout the accident report, which appears to support deletion/merge (no real lessons learned from this crash, no recommendations). Some WP:COMMONSENSE is required here in interpreting the WP:AIRCRASH essay guidelines here for a non-revenue test flight for an airline. Although I believe any given crash in 1935 carries more weight than a comparable crash today, I do not see how this specific crash is notable enough to have its own article, rather than part of the Boeing 247 article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(add.) Maybe that was phrased poorly, instead I'll rather have said: it's notable, but will NEVER be able to be expanded beyond three lines of encyclopedic text. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. WP:AIRCRASH (a non-policy, non-guideline) needs a crash course in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note, the reveant content is already in the Boeing 247 article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just because it was a test flight does not necessarily mean that it was not notable. Coverage would probably have been in contemporary newspapers. Merge without prejudice to recreation if/when these sources can be found. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, when I said "common sense" I meant a case-by-case basis. I see that this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#Wings incident doesn't have its own entry (though probably should). Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 is a gripping story of a joy ride gone wrong. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Drive-by" copy/paste rationale. Article inclusion isn't based upon sourcing within articles themselves. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it's based on such sources existing - which, for this accident, they do not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Associated press coverage, October 31, 1935:

Associated Press (October 31, 1935). "Cheyenne, WY United Airlines Plane Crashes". Centralia Daily Chronicle (Washington). Retrieved December 5, 2011.

An historical event with coverage in reliable sources, way before the Internet existed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the continuing coverage? This fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER completely; there is zero notability here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All crashes get ample coverage, and are studied in detailed, and learned from. Consensus has always been that. Thus the reason we have so many of them. Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners Dream Focus 14:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, all crashes do not get ample coverage. All airliner crashes get coverage...because they crash and kill passengers. This aircraft crashed on a test flight - four company employees, performing the test, were killed, and there is precisely zero continuing coverage. . - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - I like how, despite the explanation of why this doesn't really serve as a good stand alone article, we still get the usual "a source exists so this MUST be kept" without putting any more thought into it. Lacks the potential to become a worthwhile standalone article, and, like other articles in the field that could technically be considered "notable" but would make for a poor article, should (and I believe already has?) be covered in another article. .--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus' argument. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Dream Focus' argument is that it puts the broad statement, that all crashes get substantial coverage, over the actual truth, which is that this one didn't. Are we really going to ignore the actual case we're dealing with in preference to a generalization?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion before about which crashes to include, and Wikipedia:AIRCRASH was made as a guideline. Still not officially promote to guideline status, but whatever. People died in the crash. It surely got coverage, this the type of things people report. Not all newspapers and magazines have their entire history searchable through Google. They learned something from it, and thus it had lasting effect. Dream Focus 17:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point and completely misreading WP:AIRCRASH. This article meets WP:AIRCRASH...for inclusion in the Boeing 247 article only, on the basis of 1. fatalities, 2. hull loss. It does not make any claim that anything was learned from it. At all. It was a pilot error accident. And, for stand-alone articles, WP:AIRCRASH states: "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." A 1935 pilot-error crash on a training flight would not have produced much, if anything, beyond an article in the local newspaper - it was not the "kind of thing people report", aircraft were rather more likely to crash back then, and did so, regulary. There were no known changes in procedures and regulations, and regardless of that, there is precisely zero evidence that this accident meets the WP:GNG or even comes close to it. "It surely got coverage" - while it is true that sources only need to exist for an article to be notable, there is no evidnce that sources exist. "It was a crash therefore there must be sources" is not the same thing as "there are sources". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 causa sui (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Ramsey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC) I see it was previously discussed with the result delete recently. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 6. Snotbot t • c » 00:50, 6 December 2011 (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. Existence, and even longevity and size, do not make for notability DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Woodland[edit]

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

I am unable to find any independent sources that indicate the notability of this campground or provide significant coverage. I prodded it earlier but the article's creator contested the prod. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that there are other Camp Woodlands out there, this article is about the one in Temple, Georgia. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be an ordinary camp running the usual programs - a lack of notability. Stormbay (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can't find sourcing for even weak notability claim. Perhaps a sentence could be written at Temple, Georgia on it, but not clear whether that is even merited.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Camp Woodland was built in 1969 and at its first summer camp had 487 campers. The camp also has a dynamic history. Also, the camp has several events and camps for youth. This is according to its about page at http://woodlandcamp.org/history.html That's notable. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 23:56, 12 December 2011 (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.