< 11 April	13 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is a clear consensus that the article should be kept in some form. If editors wish to pursue a merger into Outline of Apple Inc. then that can be the subject of a subsequent merge discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of iOS[edit]

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

I removed Apple-related so-called "outline" articles, as they served no function being EXACT repeats of the info on other main topic articles as well as info box templates clearly existing with the same info laid out identically on them too. They featuring absolutely no additional information, no new purpose, and all had the low merit template or similar on them accordingly. All the info on them was already given in exactly the same form on other main Apple-related pages, as should have ben checked before creation by checking pre-existing pages listed on the mass of Apple templates first (see here: User:Jimthing/Apple). Unless there is a clear reason for their existence —when they feature identical info found on another page on the WP— they shouldn't be created. Not all subjects need to have such "outline" pages, when other pages already exist for several years that clearly happen to already do the exact same purpose. --Jimthing (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Sorry no explanation whatsoever for this outline to be created. As said, what is the point of this page? When all the info such a page would contain appears on several other places (eg. Apple Inc. page itself). Have you seen the info boxes clearly displayed on the bottom of all Apple-related pages (see here: User:Jimthing/Apple). --Jimthing (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination counts as your delete !vote - you don't get to !vote in addition -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was going to !vote to delete, but I'd never heard of Outlines before. Having read about them now, I see no reason to delete this. It duplicates information elsewhere, but it appears that's what Outlines do - they just present it in a different way. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Outlines seem kind of lame to a lot of people, but they're allowed on Wikipedia even if they duplicate material, according to WP:Outlines and Wikipedia:CLN. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this subject has plenty of topics to justify an outline. All outlines go through development phases. This outline is a work in progress and awaits further expansion and developments. For examples, see Outline of chess, Outline of canoeing and kayaking, Outline of cell biology and Outline of forestry. The Transhumanist 15:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There's no reason to delete this because of WP:OUTLINES, but I'm not 100% convinced that this contains anything that couldn't just be included in the Outline of Apple Inc. article just as well. Outlines being redundant to articles and non-outline-lists is one thing. Being redundant to other outlines? I don't know. I'm leaning towards keeping this, but we should consider just including it in Outline of Apple Inc. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as these seem to be allowed then someone can close this. I'd never heard of these "outlines" either, so they need some decent exposure including info on how they came into being on WP. Additionally, can two things be done:

Very many items are missing from the page under each heading — please update ASAP using the navigational boxes I have collated (here: User:Jimthing/Apple).
Prices: as well known, WP isn't just America ;-) — hence don't just use US$ prices, follow good practice and list more of them (a la the side drop menu here: iPad (3rd generation) sidebar). --Jimthing (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Outline of Apple Inc. Everything in this outline is in that one already. If one thing isn't, it can be added. Zach Vega (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my previous comment. But in addition to what I said, after looking at this article, I agree with a merge with the "Outline of Apple Inc.", keeping as much of this tree structure in tact as possible. So to be clear, (1) move all this info (copy/paste+edit), (2) close this AfD, (3) set this page ("Outline of iOS") to re-direct to "Outline of Apple Inc." Go ahead and do it. --Jimthing (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom, no remaining opposition. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Apple Inc.[edit]

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

I removed Apple-related so-called "outline" articles, as they served no function being EXACT repeats of the info on other main topic articles as well as info box templates clearly existing with the same info laid out identically on them too. They featuring absolutely no additional information, no new purpose, and all had the low merit template or similar on them accordingly. All the info on them was already given in exactly the same form on other main Apple-related pages, as should have ben checked before creation by checking pre-existing pages listed on the mass of Apple templates first (see here: User:Jimthing/Apple). Unless there is a clear reason for their existence —when they feature identical info found on another page on the WP— they shouldn't be created. Not all subjects need to have such "outline" pages, when other pages already exist for several years that clearly happen to already do the exact same purpose. --Jimthing (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See WP:OUTLINES. I'll update it to make it more in-depth. Zach Vega (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Sorry you added no explanation whatsoever for this outline to be created. As said, what is the point of this page? When all the info such a page would contain appears on several other places (eg. Apple Inc. page itself). Have you seen the info boxes clearly displayed on the bottom of all Apple-related pages (see here: User:Jimthing/Apple). --Jimthing (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination counts as your delete !vote - you don't get to !vote in addition -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six points:

Wikipedia has several navigation systems, and they are all striving to become complete. Redundancy between them is expected and encouraged, and this provides the opportunity for leapfrogging innovations. See WP:CLN.
It's a work in progress, far from complete at the time it was nominated for deletion. Even the largest oak must start out as a tiny seedling. This young tree won't grow to maturity if we rip it out of the ground.
As a centralized structured topics list, it overviews Wikipedia's coverage of the entire subject, serving as a table of contents to it.
For ease of topic selection, annotations are being added so the reader can see what all the topics mean without engaging in a marathon click session to find out. This feature is not available in categories or navigation footers.
The layout and annotations also make the page ideal for reviewing the subject.
Inclusion on the Outline of knowledge gives the reader another avenue in which to find this subject. The Transhumanist 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was going to !vote to delete, but I'd never heard of Outlines before. Having read about them now, I see no reason to delete this. It duplicates information elsewhere, but it appears that's what Outlines do - they just present it in a different way. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this is a valid outline, and a nice addition to Wikipedia's system of outlines. There are many articles about Apple on Wikipedia. This is the best place to go if you want to find them all. Keep in mind that outlines that are not ready yet typically get moved to the Outline WikiProject's draft space where they can be further developed until they are ready. Though this outline already covers the subject in enough depth to remain in article space. Plus, the page has Zach Vega working on it, who is doing a great job developing and expanding it. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly valid outline, useful summary presentation of encyclopedic information. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep per WP:OUTLINES. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. OK, as these seem to be allowed then someone can close this. I'd never heard of these "outlines" either, so they need some decent exposure including info on how they came into being on WP. Additionally, can two things be done:

Very many items are missing from the page under each heading — please update ASAP using the navigational boxes I have collated (here: User:Jimthing/Apple).
Prices: as well known, WP isn't just America ;-) — hence don't just use US$ prices, follow good practice and list more of them (a la the side drop menu here: iPad (3rd generation) sidebar). --Jimthing (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Transhumanist has it nailed with her/his points. The outline is a helpful navigation aid, even if redundant in some ways, and should be expanded to include the business side of things, not just the products side. Megacorps need directories exactly because they're labyrinthine. — Sctechlaw (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Fathers Club[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not so sure that this doesn't pass notability guidelines. The article most certainly needs cleanup, as it looks like it's full of fancruft and OR, but this does seem to have actual reviews and articles about it out there to show notability. That the Guardian reviewed it says a lot. Let me see what I can do.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've cleaned out a lot of the nonsense that smacked of original fan research and I've removed all of the blatantly unusable links, such as reviews by non-notable book review blogs. I've found reviews by the NPR, US Weekly, The Guardian, and others, so I feel that it passes notability guidelines now. As far as the movie option goes, the only claim for this is on the author's website and it hasn't been mentioned anywhere else other than this that I can find, so I think it's best to leave it off until we have better sources to verify this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article as it stands now (good work, Tokyogirl79) has multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews--I spot checked USA Today and NPR--and so passes the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it does not pass WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of WP:BK states "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." This has been reviewed through multiple independent and non-trivial news sites, which counts as notability under part one of WP:BK. It passes, at least from what I can see of the notability guidelines for books.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has substantial reviews in major publications. Clearly notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This topic passes WP:GNG and criteria #1 at WP:BKCRIT. Also, the nomination refers to an entire page of notability guidelines for books, hence the nomination doesn't provide specific rationale for the article's removal from Wikipedia. An article shouldn't be deleted per an entire page of guidelines! Clarification of which points of WP:BK the topic is asserted to fail would have been helpful. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The nomination would implicitly mean the subject failed all criteria; if the subject passed any one of the criteria, then it would meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The multiple reviews in major publications establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per TokyoGirl, article looks better; meets WP:GNG. Lord Roem (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAP 1842RBDT[edit]

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

I found no coverage for this truck. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While every individiual model of motor vechicle is notable enough for an article, that assumes the presence of reliable sources that verify its existance, which I cannot do. I'm not quite ready to tag it for Speedy G3 as a hoax, but I cannot verify that this make and model exists (and, if it does, it's likely a subtype of the FAP 1840, and would be covered under its article if such is ever created). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is every model of motor vehicle notable? If there aren't even independent sources to verify its existence, just an entry in the manufacturer's product listings, there's no way it passes the GNG. As an aside, in the photo it actually looks like a rebadged MAN F2000, although the photos of other FAPs in the main article seem to have Mercedes SK cabs... bobrayner (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, should we consider any unique motor vehicle model notable by default? Even if the factory built it like lego from a MAN cab, Mercedes engine and axles, ZF transmission, ...? bobrayner (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In those cases, they'd be merged to a manufacturer's or model-line article, I'd imagine. But long-standing consensus achieved through editing (and, in the latter case at least, AfDs, I'm not as familiar with car AfDs) has established that car models and aircraft models that can be verified as being truly independent types through reliable sources are notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- I might have said "merge" to Fabrika automobila Priboj, which makes it, but that article is currently no more than a list of model numbers. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The creative process[edit]

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

An article that seems to exist only as a step by step guide on writing. Thus, it falls under Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO. In addition, the article seems to be based largely on Original Research, as the references provided (on top of being not reliable third party sources) do not address the article's topic directly, making this a case of WP:SYNTH. PROD was removed by the page creator without explanation, so I brought it here. Rorshacma (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here that could be salvaged into an encyclopedic article. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Samuel Tan 22:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Serious doubts remain that this project even exists. Sandstein 21:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Human Rights Educational Project[edit]

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

Likely hoax. I'm unable to find any reliable verification for the existence of the United Nations Human Rights Educational Project or for a person named Igor Doubenko having anything to do with the UN. The relevant UN program appears to actually be this, which has nothing that I can tell to do with the a project that may or may not exist called "United Nations Human Rights Educational Project". I'm AfDing this instead of CSDing just in case the sources are out there and I just can't find them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very strange. No google hits on un.org. I'm guessing based on the search results that this is an obscure New Zealand program. Even though they have a flag they don't seem notable. Obviously the flag could be created in 2 minutes in MS Paint, but it's still a nice touch. The cynic in me says somebody invented this to puff up his/her CV, in which case I will certainly give them a job. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be also worth checking out the Sérgio Vieira de Mello page since it mentions this "UNHREP as well, and appears to be sourced. However, since I could not find the relevant flag anywhere else, may possibly be a hoax.--New questions? 07:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please Delete ASAP. This “Deletion Discussion” is both superficial and pointless. Here’s why:

1. I’m the only person who knows for sure what piece of data on myself is true and which is not; 2. If you have doubts that Her Majesty ever wrote to me, just write a letter (yes, under your real name) to her Office and ask them to confirm; 3. If you have doubts that Mr. Annan ever wrote to me, just write a letter (yes, under your real name) either to his speaker, Mr. Ahmad Fawzi or Kofi Annan Foundation and ask them to confirm; 4. If you have doubts that UNHREP exists, just write a letter (yes, under your real name) either to Mr. Ban, the UN Secretary General, or to Navanethem Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and ask to confirm. Thank you. Igor Doubenko, Executive Director, UNHREP--GLobal Igor Doubenko —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I am very skeptical that this organization exists at all. The only source we have is a brief mention in a left-wing blog out of Brazil. If this were an actual organizaton within the United Nations, surely we would have some more reliable reference. The flag image could easily be created in Photoshop or any other graphics program. Please prove me wrong. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of whether this project actually exists or not, the fact remains that we have no coverage in independent reliable sources to establisn notability, but more importantly, we have no sources to satisfy verifiability. Even searching the UN site does not turn up any primary sources. I found this article profiling Igor Doubenko but it is a passing mention and being part of an interview, I'm not sure that the interviewer fact checked this assertion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United Nations, per WP:ORG. I found [1], which probably isn't considered a reliable source and isn't enough on its own anyway. I found no mention of the organisation in obituaries of Sérgio Vieira de Mello but we should assume good faith and can add ((citation needed)) tags as required. -- Trevj (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC) PS I found some references to the differently worded Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. -- Trevj (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm going to object to a merge. The material we have here fails verifiability. Nobody has been able to find any reliable sources for verification. The local newspaper interview is a bit dubious, and the midiaindependente.org site publishes submitted pieces without the editorial oversight we would need to say they are a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coinland.com[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable organisation and SPAMish. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Seems entirely to be a promotion of a non-notable company. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried that but the admins doing the speedies always err on the side of keeping an article no matter how tenuous the claim of notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable entity. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. Lord Roem (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahontoay[edit]

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

Tagged as hoax. I have found no evidence that this group exists and all Google hits return Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. The one reference given doesn't mention this name at all. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried searching for them and came up empty. I even tried searching for Chippewa + repeating thunder, thinking maybe the tribe's name was spelled incorrectly, and still came up with nothing. Appears to be a hoax (or, at the minimum, it's not notable.)JoelWhy (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JoelWhy. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though this is NOT a hoax, it is written not from a NPOV, about 1/3 is OR, and all is unreferenced. There are also blatantly incorrect statements made such as "In Ojibwa the name Ahontoay means 'Repeating Thunder'", which is not how one would say "repeating thunder" in either Ojibwe or Cree. Though "Ahon-to-ays Ojibwa Band (a.k.a. Rocky Boy Ojibway Band)" have submitted an application to the IBIA for formal recognition years ago, BIA in their IBIA report states "Incomplete letter of Intent to Petition [submitted by the group on] 2/1/1996". Until either the chief or the unrecognised tribe becomes notable, this article should not exist. CJLippert (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per CJLippert, but I'm not sure he's correct that its not a hoax. Definitely smells fishy. Lord Roem (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 23:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tish Whitcraft[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. Few ghits. References given are a wiki, a company directory and a 404 page. noq (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any reliable sources which would suggest that she is notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete All reference links have been updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leokim3 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - TechCrunch did find it noteworthy that she had switched from Myspace to Tagged[2]. Don't know if that is enough, though. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More references added - please do not delete - I've received additional reference from Ms. Whitcraft. They are the following: [3] [4] [5] [6] What else do you need to verify this? --[comment added by Leokim3 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Additional Reference - Ooma Reference [7] --[comment added by Leokim3 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Additional Reference - Another Ooma Reference from the Ooma blog 12/2011 - Tish Whitcraft added to executive team with series B funding [8] --[comment added by Leokim3 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find the talk page comment "All content has been reviewed and approved by Ms. Whitcraft" disturbing. But it does explain why the article reads like a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've reviewed all the references at this point, and none of them are what are needed to establish notability; they are variously either not independent, not a reliable source, or not substantial coverage about the subject. My own searches find some routine business news covering the movement of executives between companies but no in depth coverage about Whitcraft. - Whpq (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do not Delete - Whpq, please contact me to discuss this. The comments you've made are unclear. How are articles from TechCrunch and Business Week that specifically identify Ms. Whitcraft as "not a reliable source"? In addition, can you explain why you find the talk page comment "disturbing"? Your comment hy the article reads like a press release is merely an opinion. The format for this article follows similar formats for other internet entrepreneurs such as Mike Jones and Jason Hirschhorn. In fact, Ms. Whitcraft's article is just as credible and noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leokim3 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The TEchcrunch article is not significant coverage, Businessweek simply is an entry in a directory of company profiles. The talk page comment is disturbing because it stated that the information has been approved by Tish Whitcraft (youve' removed that assertion in this edit). It is exactly for this reason that editors like you with a conflict of interest must be very careful about how such articles are editted. -- Whpq (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:N as outlined by Whpq above. Jeepday (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Mauney[edit]

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

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

Notability seems to be seriously lacking here, both for the man and his work. Not much notability is asserted and even less is demonstrated in the references. I did a bit of Googling and I see no sign of significant coverage by reliable sources. I think the comic is a web only comic, not something published and sold on newstands. I could be wrong about that but I see nothing to indicate otherwise. DanielRigal (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no reliable sources which would suggest notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - He seems to have had guest appearances at several conferences (MegaCon 2007, 2008 & 2009, Ikasucon 2008 & 2009, MatsuriCon 2008) which would seem to indicate at least some notability in his field. I also found an interview with him. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis is the website that hosted his webcomic so I would classify the interview as a primary source probably not conferring any notability in itself. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe if someone wants to put more information to indicate his notability, I could be persuaded to change my mind. But, as it stands, he doesn't seem to be particularly notable.JoelWhy (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, I could not find enough reliable coverage for Mr. Mauney that would establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autoingest[edit]

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

Initially, an IP editor tagged this article for deletion with no rationale. I removed it, asking them to provide reasons... but upon review, I realized that the entire article is advertisement copy. There are no sources provided, nor can I find anything that mentions this software beyond the publisher's website and mirrors of this article. The cost section offers quantity discounts. My concern is that, if I removed everything promotional, there would be nothing left. I'm happy to keep this with adequate sourcing, but I can find none. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for the reasons mentioned in the nomination. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotion. I'm seeing a bare mention here, but a reasonable search doesn't find anything meeting IRS. BusterD (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Quad Cities Metropolitan Area. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 23:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Quad Cities[edit]

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

There is no recognized "Greater Quad Cities" distinct from the Quad Cities Metropolitan Area. This article proposes that the Greater QC is the QC MSA plus Muscatine County, Iowa, but the only source that supports this is a promotional website attempting to push this new idea. There is zero recognition of a distinct "Greater Quad Cities" either in governmental sources or major media sources. This is an article about an entity that does not exist, (except perhaps in the dreams of some Muscatine County business persons). This article fails WP:N and WP:RS~~, and WP:OR~~. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 4. Snotbot t • c » 02:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I had placed it here, but then previewed it instead of saving it.HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. This isn't an official metropolitan area or combined statistical area, and the five-county area appears to be the creation of the Bi-State Regional Commission, which is just a local intergovernmental group as far as I can tell. The federal and state governments don't use the term, nor do any media outlets. While businesses use the term, they use it inconsistently; some use it to refer to the metropolitan area, which some add Whiteside County, Illinois to the area. There's no evidence, however, that the term is widely used for this five-county area. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Quad Cities Metropolitan Area. Wikipedia now has at least three articles for the same metro — Quad Cities, Quad Cities Metropolitan Area, and Greater Quad Cities — all based on different definitions of the same socioeconomic area. The distinction between "Quad Cities" and the others is clear: Using the name "Quad Cities" strictly for the city limits of 4 municipalities is widespread, though certainly not completely agreed upon. But there's no substantial difference between the "Quad Cities Metropolitan Area" and "Greater Quad Cities". As TheCatalyst31 said above, some organizations (like the pseudogovernment Bi-State Regional Commission, whose income comes from how many governments they can get to pay their salaries) draw a line around an extra county or two, but that is the case for both QCMA and GQC; I don't see any evidence that neutral sources make a distinction between the two. --Closeapple (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I'm not prepared yet to give an assertion here, I'm not sure I agree with the analysis above. This may be arguable, but is not OR. It appears the Bi-State Regional Commission has been around for a number of years ([9]) and has been using the term since 1992. It appears at least one local chamber of commerce uses the terminology.[10] Here are examples which use the idiom in their institutional identity: [11][12][13][14][15]. Redirect may be the best option, seeing as how this is a perfectly reasonable search term, but sources demonstrate this is not ORIGINALRESEARCH. BusterD (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refutation. With all respect to User:BusterD, who did that research, none of this supports the articles's continued existence. The point is not whether anyone uses the term "Greater Quad Cities"; I've never doubted that they do, just as people refer to "Greater New York", "Greater Milwaukee", etc. Look at the following: Greater Chicago, which redirects to Chicago metropolitan area; Greater Miami, which redirects to South Florida metropolitan area; Greater Phoenix, which redirects to Phoenix metropolitan area.

The fact is, "Greater" has long been an essentially generic phrase to refer to a city's metropolitan area. The issue here is whether or not there is a recognized entity called the Greater Quad Cities that is distinct from the Quad Cities Metropolitan Area. The distinction proposed by the Bi-State Regional Commission is to define the "Greater QC" exactly the same as the US Government defines the QC Metro Area plus Muscatine County. And there is no significant support for this self-serving redefinition.

I will withdraw the claim that this is WP:OR. When I wrote that I was probably presuming that someone from the BSRC wrote the article, which, while quite likely, is certainly impossible to prove, and should never have been stated. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: to allow discussion of the newly presented evidence

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 17:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect. I pretty much concur with what the nominator has stated above. I've found no sources better than those I've already presented. I'd say further that when we talk about the greater New York area, we call it the "Tri-State" and when we talk about the greater Chicago area, we call it "Chicagoland". So when someone says "Greater Quad Cities" I can see why that sounds a bit redundant. (Would anyone accept "Greater Chicagoland" as a formal designation? No. Yet several institutions use the idiom for identity. [16],[17]) All the above said, redirects are cheap, so unless there's something to merge (perhaps a link to the Bi-State Regional commission), I suggest we delete what we have, then redirect as User:Closeapple suggests. BusterD (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Roth (baseball)[edit]

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

Article does not meet the criteria set down in Wikipedia:Notability (sports), specifically the baseball section. A college player who was selected low in the 2011 MLB draft, but did not sign. References are primarily local news, no sign of significant wide coverage of the subject. A discussion at DYK is ongoing regarding this, and two other articles, which has stalled. I have listed all three articles here to generate some proper discussion on the topic, so that it can be decided once and for all in the proper manner. (Discussion: Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Roth (baseball), Jason Krizan, Cody Martin (baseball)) Harrias ^talk 11:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 3. Snotbot t • c » 11:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator and DYK nominator Sufficient coverage to meet GNG, which does not require national news. From WP:ITSLOCAL: "Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline requires multiple sources independent of the subject to cover the subject in order to establish notability. But this guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage." Besides, he gained national recognition for starring in the College World Series in consecutive years. His coverage exceeds Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. These articles have multiple sources independent of the subject. It shouldn't matter that they don't meet NSPORTS, they meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the question is whether any of the national coverage is more than routine game summaries or statistical summaries. Note that WP:GNG requires that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". This is the type of article that I personally would like to see kept but that fails WP:ATHLETE. There is no consensus on WP that being an All-American confers permanent notability for college baseball players. There was a time when this article would have until the end of the season the following his final collegiate year to meet either ATHLETE or GNG. I am leaning toward saying that this article has sufficient depth to meet GNG at this time. However, the biographical sketch is thin. The benefit to wikipedia is retention of encyclopedic detail. If the article result is deletion, maybe we could agree to hold this in the article incubator until the end of September 2012 out of respect for the old policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge This is a well-written article but I don't see how the subject is any more notable than any of the dozens if not hundreds of college and minor league players who've been deleted or merged. Just about every good Division I player in a major sport has received coverage like this in local or regional outlets. (Ditto for minor leaguers.) — NY-13021 (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCOLLATH, Roth has "gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team", which is demonstrated by his All-American status.--TM 18:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure WP:NCOLLATH is meant to imply that all all-americans are necessarily notable, and some of the coverage seems somewhat weak, but I think there is enough coverage to get over the WP:GNG bar. Rlendog (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Tony, but I think the keep argument is substantially stronger. Lord Roem (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Atlanta Braves minor league players - Non-admin closure, but consensus is quite clear. 86.** IP (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Martin (baseball)[edit]

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

Article does not meet the criteria set down in Wikipedia:Notability (sports), specifically the baseball section. A college player who was selected low in the 2011 MLB draft, but has not played MLB. References are primarily local news, no sign of significant wide coverage of the subject. A discussion at DYK is ongoing regarding this, and two other articles, which has stalled. I have listed all three articles here to generate some proper discussion on the topic, so that it can be decided once and for all in the proper manner. (Discussion: Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Roth (baseball), Jason Krizan, Cody Martin (baseball)) Harrias ^talk 11:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 3. Snotbot t • c » 11:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator and DYK nominator Sufficient coverage to meet GNG, which does not require national news. From WP:ITSLOCAL: "Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline requires multiple sources independent of the subject to cover the subject in order to establish notability. But this guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage." These articles have multiple sources independent of the subject. It shouldn't matter that they don't meet NSPORTS, they meet GNG. I believe his coverage exceeds Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ the question is whether any of the national coverage is more than routine game summaries or statistical summaries. Note that WP:GNG requires that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". This is the type of article that I personally would like to see kept but that fails WP:ATHLETE. There is no consensus on WP that being an All-American confers permanent notability for college baseball players. There was a time when he would have until the end of the season the following year to meet either ATHLETE or GNG. I personally, would prefer to hold him to this standard and give him a chance to be called up this season or set some Minor League records. The benefit to wikipedia is retention of encyclopedic detail. If the article result is deletion, maybe we could agree to hold this in the article incubator until the end of September out of respect for the old policy. I would vote to keep if this article had sufficient biographical detail about his high school career to give the article the feel that we have the ability to produce a biographical sketch with encyclopedic content. One fact about his high school career fails this standard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "I personally, would prefer to hold him to this standard and give him a chance to be called up this season or set some Minor League records", you might think about changing your !vote to a merge and redirect to Atlanta Braves minor league players. We use those pages to catch bios that are not sufficient for their own page at this time, but have the potential to deserve one in due time. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge and redirect to Atlanta Braves minor league players per Muboshgu.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge This is a well-written article but I don't see how the subject is any more notable than any of the dozens if not hundreds of college and minor league players who've been deleted or merged. Just about every good Division I player in a major sport has received coverage like this in local or regional outlets. (Ditto for minor leaguers.) — NY-13021 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCOLLATH, Martin has "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team", which is demonstrated by his All-American status.--TM 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I understand this could mean this AfD and DYK are stalling each other, but with the current opinion divide here further participation is needed.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 17:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I'm not in any rush with this, and I understand this article could end up merged, though I hope it won't be outright deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Atlanta Braves minor league players. I just don't see the significant coverage required for an stand alone article, and wasn't a top prospect neither. Secret ^account 19:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who wishes to merge this article explain how it does not pass the NCOLLATH guideline? It seems to me to pass it to the letter. A first team All-American would seem to have always have gained national media attention (i.e. from Baseball America etc).--TM 11:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see significant coverage here, other than the local area newspapers and minor passing mentions which isn't coverage. Unfortunately college baseball players get much less coverage than college football or basketball players unless they are a top prospect which he, despite his All-American status isn't. Merge makes sense here until more coverage can be found that indicate notability outside his college career and being drafted. Secret ^account 18:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least three sources presented go into him in depth: refs 3, 5 and 8. Those count as "multiple sources" with "non-trivial coverage" in my opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 8 mentions his All-American honor and not much else, basically trivial coverage, ref 3 is the typical coverage from the local small town newspaper on a local high school athlete, I can't see source 5 as it's behind a paywall but I just don't see the extra coverage that any other college or minor league athlete gets. Secret ^account 20:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 3's "typical coverage from the local small town newspaper on a local high school athlete" still counts as coverage towards GNG, as it's about him in a non-trivial, in depth manner. Citation 8 is not "trivial coverage"; it is brief, but it discusses a major honor and the season for which he earned it. Source 5 says he "set a Bulldogs single-season saves record with nine", so again not trivial coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is setting his college baseball team single-season saves record with nine any claim of notability? And source three is again Routine Coverage, very localized coverage by the very small town newspaper. I don't see the GNG here. I'm not discussing a deletion, just a merge. Secret ^account 18:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - There is enough sourced content and a suitable merge target such that deletion is clearly not appropriate. I am not sure WP:NCOLLATH is meant to imply that all all-americans are necesarily notable. There is a good amount of sourced content, but I am not sure the sources are quite strong enough to meet WP:GNG, although I could see it barely meeting the guideline. Rlendog (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Atlanta Braves minor league players. Seems the best option for this one. Spanneraol (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Atlanta Braves minor league players. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep while a lot of those articles are behind pay-walls, the "bee" article appear to be mostly about him and the all-american thing seems to be a strong hint of notability. Looks like weakly meets GNG and weakly meets NCOLLATH. Hobit (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Atlanta Braves minor league players Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW KEEP (non-administrative close, its that obvious). Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Rosen[edit]

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

This article appears to be a self-serving resume'. Appears to violate WP:YOURSELF WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NPOV Review article's talk page for previous comments. Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has oscillated between anti-RIAA hate-page and pro-Rosen puff piece, but hopefully some kind of compromise can be reached. I've cut out some of the more egregious stuff myself. The article has multiple references which establish notability, focusing on Rosen herself rather than the RIAA disputes, and she seems to have found new notability as a LGBT campaigner. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is an advertisement and the individual is marginally notable only for recent comments made about Ann Romney on CNN. --CheshireCatRI —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or Revise. It reads like a introduction to a speaking engagement. Why not make it appear more like Ann Romney's or Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.1.195 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Former RIAA chief? That alone confers significant notability, never mind her political actions now. Obvious keep. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, former pres of the RIAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.4 (talk) Note: I have removed a falsified signature from this comment. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly and obviously. When I saw her in the news, I thought, "Hey, is this the same Hilary Rosen who used to head up the RIAA?" Notable for her RIAA presidency, LGBT activism and political commentary. The only AfD criterion suggested by the nom is WP:NOT#NEWS, but given the multiple bases for notability, that is not applicable here.

This in no way a close question. Yes, the article is an ungodly mess and needs substantial cleanup; and that's reflected in the nomination, all of which (other than NOT#NEWS) are discussions of content, not whether the article should exist. But AfD is not a forum for cleanup; and we do not delete messy articles on notable subjects, we fix them. TJRC (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MemoRamso (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heading RIAA alone is sufficient to confer notability. If you believe the article is imbalanced, the solution is to edit it to fix the imbalance, not to take it to AFD. Fixing POV is not AFD's purpose. —Lowellian (reply) 19:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly a notable public figure. The article does need some attention, but AfD is not cleanup and the provided reasons for deletion are not in the list of reasons for deletion per se. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a significantly changed article than it was just a few hours ago. Does no longer appear to violate the guidelines I noted previously and I change my view to Keep. Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by Sangrolu. No deletion rationale is given and the arguments are all cleanup issues.165.123.24.3 (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long term head of RIAA makes her a public figure, clearing the bar for me out of the gate. Everything else is a matter of cooperative editing. Carrite (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep trust me, there is people in Wikipedia waaaayy less notable than her --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may not be good, but she is obviously notable. What's particularly perverse here is that this article has existed for almost a decade with no attempts to get it deleted, and that what has triggered the current proposal for deletion is that Rosen has been in the news in the last few days. Wikipedia is not news, but the fact that someone who's had an article for 9 years is now in the news is not a good reason to delete the article. john k (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a commentator/pundit on CNBC, MSNBC and CNN is sufficient to confer notability. 69.217.201.222 (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; while there are certainly aspects for improvement, there's good basic encyclopedic stuff here. Claims that her notability is only due to recent comments is easily belied by checking GNews archives, and finding her name in the headlines of dozens of articles, all predating the kurrent kerfuffle, including such sources as the NY Times, Washington Post, and Wired. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Even if she'd done nothing else with her life, heading the RIAA is arguably prima facie grounds for notability in itself. Her subsequent activities only add to that case. This article needs some cleanup so it reads less like a promotional piece, but I don't think her notability is in doubt. Robofish (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If for no other reason than her Congressional testimony during the Napster hearings. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly a notable person as former RIAA head alone, and pretty much someone known by everyone in the music and black market music industries. Nate • (chatter) 22:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' she was notable 10+ years ago, she definitely is now. 23:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep, but clean up and inprove NPOV. Perhaps only a marginally notable lobbyist now, but certainly notable in the past with RIAA. Jonathunder (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no reason to lose the article because it wasn't written the way it should have been. Rewrite it, what is this Britannica? Agreed, RIAA chief is a good reason to keep. The DMCA is not a jaywalking law, it is noteworthy who was involved in its passage. JoeHenzi (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I saw the news in the past 48 hours I remembered her name from "somewhere". Wiki confirmed her role in the RIAA and that whole bit of history.

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people): Rosen is the CEO that brought the RIAA into its most well-documented (and controversial) era. Google matches on "Hilary Rosen", limited to 2011-12-31 back (to exclude the April 2012 coverage): 1180 hits in Google News (most of which are probably WP:RS); about 37,700,000 for everything (which is probably mostly non-WP:RS). I don't think it's bad enough to meet WP:CSD#G11 (at least anymore). --Closeapple (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Notability is established through sources and this is clearly trending towards keep. The nominator's rationale and two delete arguments thus far have to do more with neutrality which can and is being addressed. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 02:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good example of political comments which have nothing to do with solving the real problems in this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.211.205 (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable before, and even more so now with recent news. I had noticed her name in a news report and looked in wikipedia to find out about her.

Morris (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. She apparently also meets with Obama every few hours if you read rightwing blogs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was around long before the Ann Romney comments, so there is no reason to delete it due to saying its only notable for recent events. Fruther, contrary to the claims by the person who posted it should be deleted, it reads no different than other biographical articles. Crd721 (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This woman could have a major impact on the 2012 campaign, Romney was dead in the water with women until her recent ill-considered comments. He may now have a chance to win support among women who find her comments slight their chosen life's work. Is it possible this woman has been posing as a Democrat in order to sabotage a presidential election in precisely this fashion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qhist (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, she's definitely both a republican plant and obama's best friend. And a sekrit muslin. All this aside, its time to close the AFD methinks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2008 Kabul Serena Hotel attack. I've merged some content and will be converting this to redirect in just a moment. Additional content can be merged from history if desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Hesla[edit]

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

It does not appear to me that this person meets our notability criteria for people. His being the victim of a notable military attack by the Taliban on foreign military officials and the foreign minister of Norway, the 2008 Kabul Serena Hotel attack, seems the only thing that has motivated the creation of this article (apart from Hesla being a US national). Having just recently made a nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carsten Thomassen (journalist), of another victim of this attack, I looked up this article and found it similarly absent of independent notability. meco (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2008 Kabul Serena Hotel attack. Seems to be just another tragic senseless bombing, and people aren't normally notable just for being victims of crimes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly merge) as there is no evidence of Hesla being notable for anything than being killed in the attack. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No trace of Notability Yasht101 09:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe Merge with 2008 Kabul Serena Hotel attack as per Colapeninsula. I did three newspaper sweeps and only found mentions of him being a victim in the attack. It was sad that this happened but we are all bound by Wikipedia's rules about notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- if anybody has a photo of Thor Hesla, and can identify the photographer (and provide the photographers' email address) please write something on my talk page (click on "talk" after this comment and write something at the bottom. And I'll try to help get a picture of Thor Hesla into the 2008 Kabul Serena Hotel attack article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notabilty. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge verified information to 2008 Kabul Serena Hotel attack. Then create a redirect. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Zone Magazine[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Unsourced, only 1 issue published and there is no evidence that this one issue made any impact". Article dePRODded with reason "Removed proposed deletion: Material has been added clarifying that magazine was first mass publishing of some(now) established talent &had unique mix of talent. No media publicity at publication so impact hard to judge. Distributed internationally". Impact is indeed "hard to judge": even the article creator cannot come up with a single independent source (or even a non-independent one, for that matter). Fails WP:GNG and WP:V, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Perhaps if the magazine had managed to make it byond a single issue, it might have attracted the critical notice needed to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable and one issue. SL93 (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – After searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources for this one-off publication. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audio:ware[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet our criteria for musicians. Contested PROD. doomgaze (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have been played and mentioned on local radio, but I could find nothing beyond that which would suggest notability. --Michig (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BBC local radio doesn't cut it for WP:MUSIC 12, and like Michig I can't find anything else that suggests notability at the moment - though of course that could easily change in the future. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 10:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Scalable Vector Graphics. Sandstein 08:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ESVG[edit]

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

As a result of my failed RfA, I was searching with google and at many reviewing pages (zdnet, etc), but I couldn't find any independent source. This software seems simply not notable. mabdul 10:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scalable Vector Graphics. I only found a couple of passing mentions in Google Books;[18][19] not enough to pass WP:GNG, but probably enough to warrant mention in a more general article. However, if anyone finds more substantial coverage I will be happy to change my !vote. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: found no coverage that would allow voting otherwise. I oppose merging this to Scalable Vector Graphics as the topics are distinct enough (library vs. file format); effectively I see no good target to merge this at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be worth a mention in the "Software and support in applications" or "Mobile support" sections of that article. There are already SVG libraries mentioned there, so it needn't be out of place. If there was, say, an editorial decision to only include implementations that have their own Wikipedia article, though, I could understand that. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Scalable Vector Graphics; I don't understand why Czarkoff objects to this, as the two are closely related. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third the merge notion; not notable, but even passing mention should still be enough for a line on the main SVG pile, at least so long as that doesn't get out of hand or something, I dunno. — Isarra ༆ 19:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Slater (artist)[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable secondary sources which evidence the notability of this artist under WP:ARTIST, when looking for sources, take care to note that several of the likely-looking hits are for the author of a book on Australian art, the publisher, or the landscape architect, or the painter (b. 1850s) James F. Slater, as opposed to this 20th century landscape painter. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I can't find anything about him, and the article has no WP:RS links and no claims as to why he might be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The first point to be made is that no commentator has argued that this band merits a standalone article. Two editors are suggesting a 'merge'. However, no material that would merit merging is reliably sourced. Merging, as one editor suggested, in the hope that sources might be discovered at some point in the future, is not a valid way to go. I would add, in passing, that the suggested target article is, itself, wholly unsourced. Turning now to the deleters; I have not accepted the comment "Too hard to fix up" as this is not a valid deletion ground. This leaves us with the nominator and one other user who both argue that the subject fails notability requirements. This is a valid statement and I therefore find the proposal to delete as the most persuasive argument. TerriersFan (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A State of Mind (band)[edit]

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

The band lacks coverage in reliable third-party sources. The band fails the notability guidelines and the article was tagged for notability since September 2010. B music ian 05:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Has only on "reference" which really isn't one. Ability to meet wp:notability looks unlikely. North8000 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May meet section six. Robbie Holland, their vocalist, appears to be notable. Unfortunately, due to the common names of the band members, finding reliable sources about them will be difficulty (Google keeps turning up Facebook profiles of people with the same name). More research needs to be done before deleting. 143.92.1.32 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe merge with Sadistic Exploits, as they shared the same vocalist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too hard to fix up. Move on to the next problem. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sadistic Exploits as related project, per WP:BAND. Bearing in mind the age of the band, there may be printed sources available. Retaining the history by redirecting after merging will easily permit editors to view previous content and evaluate in connection with sources yet to be found. -- Trevj (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Suad Joseph as a clear consensus. I have done the redirect, leaving the history; within the next two days I will see what, if anything, needs to merged (unless anyone likes to do that first). JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Families Working Group[edit]

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

Advert for an organisation. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is by them or passing mentions. I didn't find anything better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some [English] references I found:

1. Indiana University Press 2. IDRC (International Development Research Center), which is a Canadian Crown Corporation created by the Parliament of Canada 3. Volume 1, published by the University of California, Davis 4. University of California, Davis 5. A journal published by founder Dr. Suad Joseph in SAGE Journals, that also talked about AFWG 6. Birzeit University 7. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 8. Berfrois 9. UNICEF 10. American University Beirut 11. Social Science Research Council 12. University of Michigan 13. American University, Cairo 14. University of California, Davis 15. IDRC ~dee^(talk?) 12:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Despite there being wide coverage in various sources, most of the references say the same thing and I don't think there's all that much content to add. I think this would be better placed in the Suad Joseph article right now and should the organization become larger in the future, we can move it then. ~dee^(talk?) 12:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the sources supplied above

1. Publisher of their report, not independent

2. Funds the group, not independent

3. Piece by founder of group, not independent

4. Piece by founder of group, not independent

5. Piece by founder of group, not independent

6. Minimal coverage of group, uni part of group, not independent

7. Lead author a member of group, not independent

8. Passing mention only

9. Acknowledgment only

10. Only a listing as a funder, not independent

11. Listing as a partner only, not independent

12. Listing as a colaborator, not independent

13. Lead author a member of group, a thanks only, not independent

14. Press release from founders uni that is co-hosted of group, not independent

15. Funds the group, not independent

Still nothing for WP:CORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per analysis above, coverage is too slight for a standalone article. Sandstein 21:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom but not completely opposed to a merge. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Kothari[edit]

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

I can't find coverage in multiple secondary sources other than some passing mention dubbing him "leading sexologist". SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Weak delete. ~~The sources calling him a "leading sexologist" don't appear to be exaggerating.~~ He has received coverage here in The Hindu and his opinions are discussed here in the Chicago Tribune. He is also discussed directly in this book. In addition, according to this reference he is the president of the Indian Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists. The shortcomings with the article can be dealt with through editing, rather than deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make him pass WP:ACADEMIC. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 23:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, true, I'm not sure that the Indian Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists counts as a "major academic society". (I fully admit to not being up to speed on my Indian medical societies.) My thoughts were more along the lines that those references show that he passes the basic criteria of WP:BIO. It looked like there were more sources out there too - I'll try and find some when I have a spare moment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Worldcat lists a few books, but their holdings are almost non-existent. For example, the book touted in the article, Orgasm, new dimensions, is held by only 13 institutions. The others are held even less: 1, 10, and 2. Could only find 1 paper in WoS, Ethical Aspects of Sexual Medicine. That paper has >10 authors and has been cited only 10 times. Whatever work/scholarship this person has produced, the world has clearly not taken note of it. Agricola44 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've had another look through the sources, and I'm a little torn. I've found out that he has received the Padma Shri award, the fourth highest civilian award in India, and I can find copious mentions of him online. However, I haven't managed to find any other sources which cover him in detail. He seems to be one of those people that the media automatically turn to when they need a quote for articles about sexuality in India, but not someone who is considered worth writing about on his own. I think there may well be a suitable source or two out there that I have missed, but until any such sources are found, I think we must consider him as falling just short of the notability guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've changed my !vote to "weak delete" above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists who believed in Biblical creation[edit]

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

Inherently POV article, providing no value to an encyclopedia. This is not a list of current biologists, which might be interesting, but rather a list that includes Tycho Brahe. Whoo! Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a ridiculous synthesis: "This is a list of scientists who either believed in creationism, or who did not express any doubts on record". Why not have a "list of scientists who believed that the moon was made of green cheese, or who did not express any doubts on record"? Utterly idiotic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the "or who did not..." phrase has now been removed from the lede - which now leaves us with a list based entirely on vague assertions from questionable sources about people who may or may not have been 'scientists' in the modern sense, who apparently lacked the foresight to reject the norms of the period they lived in, and adopt instead the scientific concepts of a time they didn't live in. Even more ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inherently creationist POV-pushing, with tons of unsourced entries and many of the sources are incredibly unreliable (Henry Morris can't be considered a reliable source for anything related to evolution). In addition, the ages of many of those scientists means they were active when Biblical creation was the only narrative available to them. At that point, every single person on the planet would believe in some form of creation myth, making an equally valid title for the page "list of people alive before 1859". As a final point, a lot of these people are only questionably categorized as scientists. Come one. Delete. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but significantly Amend - The topic is certainly notable enough, so I think there is a valid list article here (or at least a list that is similar to this). However, if we are to keep, the reformulated list would definitely need to impose a much more clearly defined and very strict inclusion criteria. It is certainly disingenuous to list scientists (such as Brahe) who lived during the era before any alternative to the Biblical account had been formulated. Any scientist that is included in such a list would have to be from the modern era, and on record as having expressly and unambiguously asserted their belief in Biblical creation... as opposed to including those who merely have not expressed doubt. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with Blueboar's reasoning here, but I instead come to the conclusion to Delete instead of Keep/Fix because the article as it currently is would have to be thrown out and 100% restarted from scratch. Unless someone agrees to do this work right now, it's better to delete and wait for an editor to create the article at a future date when it's ready. Otherwise we would have this article as a stub with no content, no point in that and it would also give the wrong impression. Zad68 (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because we should not list peoples opinions on things, For example, we wouldnt have a 'List of musicians who think Lang Lang can't play the piano well' User Talk:Willdude123 13:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or (somehow) split (???). Believing in biblical creation in 1500 cannot be lumped with the same belief in 1900, 1950 or 2000. I did ponder about splitting....but belief in it in days of yore was non-notable, and I don't know when the line to it being notable is...if ever. Also there is the question of intensity of belief and what field of science the believer holds...how they hold both views, do they.... blah blah. Too many apples and oranges in the same basket. Ergo, the list is an artificial conflation and inherently misleading and is a net negative to encyclopedic content. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fundamentally flawed article. To begin with, "or who did not express any doubts on record" implies that there are no sources available for this assertion for many of those listed. Next of all, belief in the commonly held theory of the a particular time period can't be legitimately compared to other time periods with other different theories. Finally, belief and faith shouldn't really have much bearing on science - which is based largely on empirical fact . . . so the beliefs of people doing work in this field shouldn't matter any more than the beliefs of other people in other professions, which kind of renders the whole article pointless.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 14:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the reasons above. As Blueboar says, if it was just an article about 20th/21st century scientists that have specifically stated their belief in Creationism, that's one thing. That is not what this article is, there are over 100 scientists listed. Inflating the show of supposed support by adding the weasel term "or who did not express any doubts on record", but not including it the heading is at best, deceptive. By this yardstick, should would also create a List of scientists who don't believe in Biblical creation? Please add all eleventy-billion (ya, that's right, eleventy-billion) scientists who have never mentioned their opinion on the subject to that article too. Ridiculous. Afterthought, they didn't even do a good job of supporting their case, they went back 500 years, and could only come up with a list of just over 100 people that haven't said "No, that's clearly wrong.", I'd say that hurts their case more than it helps it, but I realize that's not related to this discussion -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 14:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, Darwin published his book on evolution in 1859, anyone listed who lived before that date is irrelevant at best. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 15:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to think of reasons not already given - it's an inappropriate list - it's like a list of scientists who didn't believe that light had a finite speed, or didn't believe in relativity. It also makes the assumption that the term 'scientist' can apply to a 13th century scholar in the same way it can apply to a 21st century scholar, which is pure original research but the basis of the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with heavy pruning There is a category Category:Creationists (with subcategory Category:Christian creationists) so I don't think it's inappropriate to have a subcategory of creationist scientists, or a list of the same. Just because something was done badly doesn't mean it can't be done with some semblance of intelligence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This doesn't get around the problem of the fact that 'scientist' now doesn't mean the same thing as it did centuries ago. And among other things, there's the fact that today everyone knows that there is a competing scientific theory. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Creationist" also didn't really mean anything before Darwin, or really wasn't even in use as a term before the 20th century. Just like calling someone a "Young Earth creationist" would be completely meaningless if that person lived prior to the development of modern geology. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's fair comment, but the article could differentiate between those post-Origin of the Species, and to those pre-OotS who actually wrote on creationism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to plead guilty to inserting the above mentioned weasel words. I did so because I thought that it more accurately described the content of the article, because scientists were being cited as 'believers in biblical creation' merely because they are not on record as having expressed doubt. Hooke is a good example. I think its an absurd and tendentious list, and inherently POV (& should be deleteed) : I'm sorry if I've muddied waters. (I think if you did prune the article, it would need a lengthy explnation of th critia for inclusion/exclusion & the 'list of...title would become inappropriate)TheLongTone (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even though the dubious "did not express any doubts on record" ~~has been~~ were to be removed, the page remains woefully unsourced, and with a questionable POV. Might as well synthesize a list of Medieval clerics who had no opinion (or hid it if they did) on phlogiston, or species of fish who never see bicycles. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should have thought of the phlogiston argument! Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. This is exactly the type of articles which shouldn't be here. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The key word here is "believed," which goes to state of mind. State of mind WHEN — do not beliefs change over time? And how does one prove or disprove that a person had certain beliefs? By one statement? By a series? On my user page I've got a Jimmy Wales quote in which he calls voting "evil" — would that qualify him for a List of people who do not believe in democracy? Moreover, some individuals are included on this list with no sources at all! This is, frankly, something akin to what we see on Conservapedia with their list of Christian athletes, etc. It's a POV exercise, plain and simple. Carrite (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without Prejudice I think this should be deleted without discouraging the creation of some future article without the obvious flaws that this one has (listing those "who did not express any doubts on record", listing pre-darwin scientists, etc.) A good template for that future article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Notice how that article carefully defines its listing criteria. Normally I would say "so fix it", but there rreally is nothing in the current article worth saving. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally, I would say keep, but there's really nothing worth saving. A list of contemporary scientists who believe in creationism would be a nice article, but all the scientists listed are dead, and most of the entries are uncited. Also, does the term 'scientist' as we know it today apply to someone born in 1214? I say delete the article and someone create a List of scientists who believe in Biblical creation with tighter inclusion criteria. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with Extreme Prejudice. All "list of..." Wikipedia articles are inherently problematic. Absent reliable sources which actually list people or events or objects or whatever it is being listed together in a manner similar to the subject article, they are inherently the result of original research by editors and synthesis of various unrelated sources. This article is a particularly egregious example of the problem, given the listing of people over the course of centuries and the admixture of "supporters" with "haven't publicly objected". Lots of scientists refrain from commenting publicly things unworthy of comment, lest it confer undeserved legitimacy. If this absurd article stands, I'm starting an article List of theologians who reject Biblical creation as a patently nonsensical fairy tale that would rightfully be ridiculed by any rational person should you seriously content that it should be regarded as factual, with St. Augustine heading up the list, and defy anyone to delete it. Fladrif (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All "list of..." Wikipedia articles are inherently problematic? Every single one? Including List of 7400 series integrated circuits, List of mathematical symbols and List of pharaohs?

Lists are an intrinsic part of Wikipedia and allowed by policy, so you can't use "lists are intrinsically bad" as an argument. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that lists are intrinsically bad. I said that they are inherently problematic, and that the problem arises where the list is not supported by reliable, third party sources that group the members of the list together in the manner suggested by the Wikipedia list article. One can find such sources listing 7400 Series Circuits or Pharaohs, so the examples are not well taken. I see no suggestion in this article's footnotes, in the source lookup, or by those advocating its retention that there are similar reliable sources supporting this list, meaning that this list is entirely original research and synthesis. Fladrif (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% that this particular list is bad on several levels. The good news is that it will soon be gone, given the way the votes are going. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep What is anyone afraid of? Creationism is nonsense so who cares who did or didn't believe it. Evolution is so true, that nothing can usurp it. perhaps this list should be eliminated too-- List of common misconceptions SmittysmithIII (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

people are "afraid" that instead of being an encyclopedia, wikipedia will become a POV pushing blog -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(and that other list, yep it probably should go, too)-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"What is anyone afraid of?" is the same as asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?", suffering from the same logical fallacy, the Loaded Question, it's a poor argument. It's not fear, and it's wrong to suggest it's a motivation. The list suggests "these are the facts" by its existence, and quite basically, these are not the facts. A poor article that attempts to bolster its cause by adding "celebrity names" (go Tycho!) to it to suggest validity. Definitely not encyclopedic behaviour (whatever that means!). -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 15:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct question might be "what's the harm in it?", to which the response is, Wikipedia is the 4th most popular website on the internet today (last I checked), you don't think some creationist is going to use this article as "proof" of their position, saying opposition to evolution goes back hundreds of years, attempting to use Wikipedia's reputation to indicate that this position is correct? Of course they would, and that's wrong (but just for continuity, go Tycho!). -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 16:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go, Galileo (Is there a list of scientists mentioned in 70's rock songs?)TheLongTone (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For all the reasons stated above. This list is simply ridiculous and fails even the most basic test of verifiablity and reliable sources. - Nick Thorne ^talk 18:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per proposal. Freikorp (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said above, I think we should delete the article and create a List of scientists who believe in Biblical creation with tighter inclusion criteria. Who wants to get the ball rolling on the new article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that is how this article started I changed it to the current name because all the "scientists" quoted were dead - this is not surprising as any list of scientists who believe in creation would be short and full of people who have let faith overcome reason, thus making their scientific reputation questionable. BTW Delete Porturology (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's place to decide whether a scientist has a questionable reputation, and it would be particularly wrong to exclude someone from a list of scientists who believe in biblical creation on the basis of them believe in biblical creation.

Delete. I haven't seen any list in a reliable source that this based on, that's the minimum I'd expect even if the criteria had to be amended a little for policy or other reasons. Also the name is problematic for Wikipedia, one cannot verify beliefs, only what people do, say or write. It may be possible for something like this to be set up in the future but the criteria should be shown to be notable and only include people who very definitely satisfy the criteria. Dmcq (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are unreliable. Some of the names are incorrectly listed. Belief in creation as taught in the biblia is hard to define and almost impossible to prove. Von Restorff (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another attempt to use Wikipedia to make A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism-type WP:POVPUSHes. We don't need another nightmare like List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming where the people supporting this POV-pushing settle in. 86.** IP (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Then create an article entitled List of scientists who believed in evolution and delete that one too. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion moved to talk page) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does not meet WP:BASIC joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London Vale[edit]

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

My PROD has been challenged by the subject. My rationale for the PROD was "Fails WP:BASIC - can't find any significant coverage regarding her as a model. Only RS on page [20] does not address the subject directly. (Source only discusses "London Sponsel" too...)" I don't think anything has changed since. SmartSE (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems to be notable; however minor of a "celebrity" this person is. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt appears she's been in some shorts or ultra-low-budget films that never made it to wide release. In other words, she appears to be only marginally more successful than the million waiter/actors in L.A. (Sorry, not trying to be mean, and it's not hard to imagine her making it big someday, but she hasn't made it yet...)JoelWhy (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any news stories about her, only one passing mention about a film. So I think it will not be possible to show notability. But there are heaps of different social websites with the name on them, a sign that Wikipedia has been counted as a social website as well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references include Facebook, IMDB, and an rs article saying she inherited an apple orchard. She was "Miss Tarzana" according to the Miss California USA website but nothing notable. Wikipelli ^Talk 13:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing that would make her pass WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable bit-part performer; no more notable than many thousands of other SAG/AFTRA members. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I have userfied the page to User:EnriqueGarcia/Translationdraft. Jac16888 ^Talk 12:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translationdraft[edit]

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

This is English Wikipedia. This article should be in it's own Wikipedia language. Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 09:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not being in English is not a valid reason for deletion - please see WP:PNT if not being written in English is the sole reason for this AfD. "Pepper" @ 10:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Shouldn't this article be translated and/or moved to the Wikipedia section with this language being present? LogicalCreator (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (whatever's salvagable after translation) with A Serbian Film... using a translator, I get that this article is about "A Serbian Film", (primarily about the film's social commentary on Serbia). Wikipelli ^Talk 13:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking more closely at it, this article is just a spanish translation of the "Interpretation" section of the existing A Serbian Film article. Wikipelli ^Talk 13:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (this will teach me to slow down and investigate more!). Ok. The page was created by one editor with information about the film "The Raid: Redemption"[21] (which also has an article on WP) This was added to (with the plot) by another user at the university. Finally, it appears that yet another student ~~(unless they're all socks)~~, stepped on "The Raid" article with a translation of "A Serbian Film" section. My guess? As all three are students at the same university - in translation studies, no less - they are using this page as a workspace for translations. I'll leave a message on all three editors' pages suggesting that they use subpages. Wikipelli ^Talk 13:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment: and then i'm going back to bed! The students are involved in a university project translating pages. I left a message [22] on the contact person's talk page. It appears from a description of the project that the students were to have been drafting in userspace but maybe didn't get the word. Wikipelli ^Talk 14:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per information provided by Wikipelli. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Wikipelli. And even if we believe that this article is not a copy of the film, it should have been in the Spanish Wikipedia. Not English. As for the comment of Pepper, I WP:PROD the article so that the admins can take a look and remove the notice, but the author removed it himself. As for the translation, I have added the tag. If the article does not comply with what Wikipelli said, it can be moved to the Spanish Wikipedia (If it is Spanish)
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 12:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he wanted to improve only then he should have removed the WP:PROD tag.--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 12:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ville Mönkkönen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a vanity article about a little known maker of freeware games. Not notable.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved the nomination page from "3rd nomination" to here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page says that this has been nominated twice before (in 2005), but one of the deletion discussions seems to be missing. So this is actually the third nomination.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing much that looks like even a claim to notability in this article, and I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of independent coverage; notability is not inherited from any notable games he has made. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete JamesBWatson (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waller drive[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable housing development. Contested WP:PROD. Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, recreation of article deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waller Drive. Fram (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Himarsha Venkatsamy[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. However minor of a model this is, she seems notable and the references seem to stand. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable per WP:NMODEL. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Another source found:

Bhattacharjee, Subhadeep (December 8, 2009). "Kingfisher 2010 Calender – Part VIII". Oneindia.in. Retrieved April 13, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

This, along with "A day in the life of: Sizzling hot Kingfisher model Himarsha Venkatsamy". lifestyle.in.msn.com. 2009-11-30. Retrieved 2012-04-12., appears to qualify the topic as meeting WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient inline citations to establish the notability are now present. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The competition was enough to get mainstream coverage, so she won a notable competition, and got coverage for her activities afterwards, such as appearing in a notable film which I added a reference to in the article for. The winner of major American pageants have articles. No reason why winners of foreign major pageant shouldn't get the same treatment. It was notable enough to be mentioned in a national newspaper, and led to the winner and runner up getting into a film. Dream Focus 13:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was BLP-PRODDED 3 minutes after creation (it was created by a newbie editor), because it had no sources. After one source was added, it was sent to AfD 40 minutes after creation. Since nominated more sources and content have been added, making a decent notability claim. I won't formally !vote, as there's really no need to say any more.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nick Lachey. v/r - T P 05:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary Day (Nick Lachey song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable song; the only coverage I found was this ridiculously short article which says the singer is performing it. [23] That's not enough to show notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge with Nick Lachey. Not notable. Already failed one AfD. Article says "The single failed to chart" and there's no other indication of why it's notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Weak Delete. Should be merged with Nick Lachey. A single song is rarely notable and especially this one, lacking sources/references. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It should be merged with Nick Lachey or perhaps Nick Lachey discography (due to formatting issues--but either article would be fine). I agree that this particular song never received enough attention to be critically evaluated nor has it gained other forms of notoriety to the degree that it could have it's own article. Lord Arador (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Nick Lachey discography. Not independently notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Topic of the article does not rise to notability. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Atlas Shrugged[edit]

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

Through a recent lengthy discussion about the notability of fictional places, an editor Juhachi came to me with a concern that fictional locations with no "real-world" notability probably fail the general notability guidelines. Now, forgive me about my ignorance about Atlas Shrugged―I do confess that I do not know much about it. However, I have found that whereas other articles about lists of fictional locations do have some reasonable secondary sources that establish its notability, there are no such secondary sources here―well, there is are the primary sources, but that, of course, does not establish its "real-world notability" that is independent of the source. I know that Atlas Struggled is particularly notable, but noting that notability is not inherited, I do not know of why this has notability in itself. In any case, while I myself do not know of the merits of Juhachi's reasoning, given that his opinion was backed up by two other long-established editors in the other discussion, I have reason to believe that his reasoning is probably sound. New questions? 06:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is ridiculously detailed original research full of entries like "Bar (unnamed) The most expensive barroom in New York, built on the top of a skyscraper, while reproducing the feel of being in a cellar. It has uncomfortable tiny tables, awful drinks and miserable service......" It's fair enough to have entries on fictional places like Narnia or the bar in Cheers, but such places should feature in multiple works or be really important to the work. Falls in the category of excessive detail. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I think that this was probably nominated to prove a point, I have to agree with New questions on this one. This is nothing more than an indiscriminate list of locations, none of which seem to have made much of an impact to the series. Also, a lack of reliable sources, as well as about half of the list including real-world locations which had little impact on the series are the final nails in the coffin. If locations need to be mentioned, they can instead be mentioned in the Atlas Shrugged article, but only those locations that really had an impact, not an unnamed bar on top of a skyscraper. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this an indiscriminate list of locations when it only lists locations of one book? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do we really need to have a list of locations for one book? If it was a series it would have been understandable. It could instead be merged to the main article if such locations are determined to be integral to the book's plot. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Participants may be interested in previous discussions about this page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places in Atlas Shrugged (the result of which was thwarted) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk/Archive 5#List of locations in Atlas Shrugged. --RL0919 (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles such as this are generally linked with notable people, places, and things; as such, should be kept. They are very useful for fans of said topic. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be considered fancruft? Things that will only be of importance to a small group of people? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Utterly unsourced fancruft. Why locations and why Atlas Shrugged??? Is there a single source anywhere on the planet dealing with this topic in depth, let alone the multiple sources that we would need to see the topic clear notability requirements? Carrite (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an Ayn Rand wiki at objectivismonline.net where this would be better off. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts have been made to relocate the page to other wikis, but no one seems to be interested. See the discussions I linked above for more on that. --RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Half the article is made up of real-world places coupled with plot, and the other half is made up of minor sites or building-like places of which any real-world town/region has non-notable thousands. And this is just one novel instead of a franchise where places show up repeatedly and might need a little explanation. Nothing notable, nothing to salvage. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may be interesting or useful for some fans or scholars, but that doesn't mean it meets our criteria for inclusion. There is simply nothing to indicate that locations in this particular novel are a notable subject covered in secondary sources. There are other sites where this type of trivia can be documented. --RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Atlas Shrugged is one of the greatest books ever written, but this list is pointless and does not belong in Wikipedia. It is not particularly notable and consists mostly of a list cobbled together of a combination of real places and fictional places, along with odd snippets of the plot of the novel. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When an article becomes too long (and no one doubts that the book Atlas Shrugged is too long), parts of it can be split off. However, this list is also much too long, even in the context of an "Atlas Shrugged" wiki, so I would vote "trim and merge", if I cared that much about it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The primary question editors wrestled with here revolve around WP:NPF, and WP:BLP1E: Is Macpherson a non-public figure? Does coverage of her revolve around one event or her relationship to her sister? Is the notability marginal enough that we honor a request for deletion? The precise "bar" here is undoubtably subjective, but in my view, consensus supports a finding that Macpherson's notability is sufficient outside of these issues to warrant keeping the article. In keeping this article, I would remind editors that the first part of WP:AVOIDVICTIM is still relevant to the wording of the article, and that careful attention should be paid to the appropriate inclusion, weight, sourcing and presentation of negative information. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Macpherson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was recently unprotected and recrearted by User:Nikkimaria. After is was speedy deleted as a recreation of deleleted content it was taken to Deletion Review. The rough consensus of the discussion there was that no speedy deletion criteria applied and the article should be discussed at a new AfD. So here we are. This is a procedural nomination and I myself am neutral. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comparing the article as it currently is to what it was for the prior AfD, it's quite clear that this is a much better article that better illustrates the subject's notability. There are a number of different fairly big things here that, taken individually, probably wouldn't be enough to give someone notability, but all together, as they are for what Mimi has achieved, seem to clearly exhibit a significant enough notability. Significant enough, even, that I don't even see anything borderline here, she's done a fair amount that has been recorded in reliable sources. Silver seren^C 06:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A reasonable biography for a public person. I would not include the material on drink driving as it is not relevant to her notability, unless there are sources mentioning it beyond the year 2007. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. J N 466 12:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I've self-reverted for now. Given that this was the third time, rather than a one-time occurrence, it is less clear-cut and could do with a bit of discussion. --J N 466 12:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A serial offender with little regard for her own or the public's safety, driving at 0.147 after two previous convictions? Yes, that's notable. And yes, it was still being mentioned two years after the offence.[24] WWGB (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That source is exactly what I was thinking is needed to justify that negative component. Thanks WWGB. This stuff is out there, on the public record, plain as day. Wikipedia didn't do it. Wikipedia does however present a much less sensationalist picture than google, I don't see how the subject can complain. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes GNG, as can be seen from the footnotes in the article. Cannot be described as "relatively unknown" or a "non-public figure" for the purposes of BIODELETE. This can also be seen from the sources. Such a person would not, for example, be asked for a quote by ABC news when The International Whaling Commission comes to town, get their bankruptcy or driving ban treated as a national news story, be signed as the "face" of at least two multi-national brands or be featured on the cover of Cosmopolitan [25] (that's not a modelling job, by the way - she is illustrating the cover story). Formerip (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is anyone questioning her notability? It seems that the original article was deleted due to content/privacy concerns, but that can easily be dealt with through the channels of discussion, consensus and page protection. St Anselm (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable. Some of the content could perhaps be removed (per SmokeyJoe), but that can be done while retaining the article. Barque (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable and the article seems fairly well-written. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only after substantial removal of non-RS claims and claims of no significance to the person ("earthdive" is not RS for example, and "supporting" something is not on its face a notable fact, 3rd DUI is only mentioned in press because of Elle, not because of Mimi, etc.) In short - a mess of a BLP which might be salvaged. Collect (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK, we don't remove information based on why the data is found in a RS. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything seems to be sourced. Sources are plentiful, not a non-public person so BLPDEL doesn't apply. The bankruptcy and DUI are well-sourced. Article seems quite reasonable actually. Hobit (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If everything is well sourced and the Untrue (but reliably sourced) rumours don't start creeping back in. Would certainly suggest Semi-Protection from the outset, with potential to fully protect if BLP problems arise again. Possibly suggest Jimbo touches base with the subject again and ensures that they are aware the article is being reinstated but that it should be better managed this time around. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article looks to be in pretty good shape with plenty of sources and no BLP violations.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 14:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Public figure, arguably a household name in Australia. Sources in the article demonstrate that the subject clearly meets the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any notoriety she may retain in Australia is as a result of her sister and/or a series of BLP-type issues. Never been a "household name" and would have almost zero name recognition now. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I don't know about that, before the discussion on these articles started, I knew of her as "Elle's lesser known sister," in much the same way as Antonia Kidman. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Enough sources in the article to demonstrate she passes WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She has marginal notability to limit mention in other articles, not a separate article. Notability is wp:NOTINHERITED from famous sister Elle Macpherson. Being named one of 30 successful business women, then declaring bankruptcy really cancels that claim. As for being a contestant on a TV show, and only ranking third, well, that qualifies for being mentioned within an article about that TV show, unlike a full-time judge on the show, being top-billed for the TV show. Being a TV commercial spokesperson is not enough. I understand that people view a person who is 30 on a list, or 3rd in TV competition show as separately notable, but really, it is enough to mention them in articles about the list, the TV show, or the endorsed cosmetics. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Being named one of 30 successful business women, then declaring bankruptcy really cancels that claim". That might be a valid viewpoint, but it doesn't cancel her notability, because it is not the only thing her notability rests on and notability, in any case, is not temporary. Formerip (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mistaken notability is "temporary" as when a person wins a gold medal but is disqualified, then that is no longer notability due to a major win; however, if the retracted gold medal becomes a long-term controversy, then that could lead to separate notability. Hence, being named a top businesswoman, and then declaring bankrupcy, looks like a case of "mistaken notability". Meanwhile, being on some magazine covers is too temporary to confer separate notability. Just put her name in a list of people on the cover in each magazine article. -Wikid77 10:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "mistaken notability" as you describe it. Someone who wins a gold medal at the Olympics is notable, even if that medal is later rescinded. Notability is not temporary. Her achievements, as documented in reliable sources, are more than enough to demonstrate notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her ~~notoriety~~ notability goes beyond simply being Elle's sister. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Her claim to fame is being a relative of a famous person and making the gossip pages in connection with that. To quote Clara Peller: "Where's the beef???" Carrite (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being the owner of a whale watching company, being the director of a promotions firm and three property companies, being involved in advertising with a number of different campaigns, being a radio presenter, being the spokesperson for a number of different environmental organizations, along with her work with the Humane Society. Individually, sure, they wouldn't confer notability, but all together, they add up to a number of different accomplishments throughout her life that have been noted by reliable sources and give her a fairly significant amount of notability. Silver seren^C 06:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We know, like many people, she has had successes, but major failures as well, and those also go into the article. She requested deletion of the article and that had been successful, but now people want to turn that into a failure as well. Why do you hate her so much, to deny her success in removing the article? -Wikid77 (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bizarre interpretation. It's got nothing to do with "hating her"; indeed, having a fair and balanced article about her among the top GHits will cancel out some of the tripe out there. Her successes make her notable; her failures do not cancel her notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article sufficiently demonstrates her notability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marginal notability - plenty of tabloid titillation reports coatracked on the back of her sister. - Article has previously been used to collect and publish all the trivia and personal details about her private life and for that reason the subject previously requested its deletion - I support her request and my interpretation of the wiki foundation/en wikipedia's aims and ambitions supports it also. Youreallycan 16:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Yrc, I agree she has "marginal notability" to be mentioned in articles related to her activities, and her life is connected with many tabloid incidents that would enter a separate bio page, as the article to be deleted. A BLP bio-article is a "slippery slope" where the positives get offset by high-profile negatives, plus exposing parents, family, hometown, and education. Perhaps redirect her name to a list of noted Australian businesswomen, since she has accomplishments beyond being "Elle's sister". It is enough to be in lists of marginally-notable people. -Wikid77 10:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I said in the previous AFD which resulted in deletion, this fails WP:BLP1E; and I completely agree with Jimbo that WP:BLP#Presumptino in favor of privacy applies here; and we should definitely avoid further vicitimization of the subject, especially considering that the notability here "stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions" and per WP:BIO#Family Dreadstar ☥ 20:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we're clear, which "1E" are you referring to? Being on the cover of multiple magazines? Winning multiple business awards? Being a spokeswoman for multiple organizations? Appearing in multiple television shows? Being a media personality and environmental activist? Lots of choices, all supported by sources...and I don't see how any of these reasons for her to be notable either victimize her or don't result from her own actions. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She's not a 'high profile figure', and the main component of her notability is who she's related to. As I stated in the previous AFD, being a "celebrity" does not confer Notability, it's the same thing as being "famous", or "popular", which are not primary criteria needed in order to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. As for being a 'noted environmentalist', yes she's done some excellent work, but there is a very high bar that must be met in order to meet WP Notability requirements, as can be seen by this list of Notable environmentalists. The awards, while nice, are not notable themselves, neither are the sources of those awards. And the TV/radio appearances are also of insufficient notablity. All of these combined do not confer sufficient notability for us to have an article on the subject; what pushes it is the famous sister, which goes against WP:BLP as to conferring notability.

Even if one believes these do provide sufficient notability, I say we still err on the side of "do no harm" and delete this article. Why do we need it? It's not encylopedic, if we take away the titillating, tabloid aspects of the content, there's nothing to base an article on. Additionally, the subject herself has asked for the article's deletion, and with her "marginal notability" as mentioned by several editors above, I think we should respect Mimi's wishes and delete it. Dreadstar ☥ 20:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Titillation"? Which article are you reading? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, while, yes, she's related to someone more famous than her, she's still best known for her involvement in the whale-watching enterprise, since she "pioneered the Hervey Bay whale-watching industry". Silver seren^C 22:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but "best known for" isn't criteria that meets WP:N. Or the so-called "pioneering" of the Harvey Bay Whale Watching Industry, whatever that means. In the end, it's obviously the "Sister of Supermodel Elle McPherson" which is the source of that so-called "nobility", there's nothing Notable about running a whale-watching business in Queensland. Do we have articles on all owners of whale-watching businesses in Queensland and everywhere else? The core of her notability is her famous sister - which is not-N. Dreadstar ☥ 22:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best known for means that that's where the core of one's notability is going to come from, not from something else. And we should have articles on whale-watching business owners who have received significant coverage in news sources for that practice. Which Mimi has very obviously done. Silver seren^C 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And she's 'best known" for having a famous sister, no two ways about it. Without that, there would be no basis for her so-called 'notability". This violates BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 04:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I commented and voted delete on the first RfD and I don't see that anything has changed since then: The subject has become known in every context because of her sister. She is not notable per Wikipedia in her own right. Why has she received coverage for her whale-watching business and the probably thousands of other such business owners have not? Because she is the sister of some one who is notable. How many drivers are stopped for drinking under the influence every day, and why did newspapers pick up this particular story? Because the driver is related to a notable person. Her notoriety which has come out of a family relationship should not be confused with notability. And its unfortunate that her life has been scrutinized in this way because of her family relationship. Perpetuating this is very tabloid like. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.(olive (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps whale-watch company was notable, not her: Yes, olive, I follow your reasoning, and I even suspect that any notability was actually for the "whale-watching company" as related to tourism awards (for the company), while there were no similar tourism activities by the person. I am thinking an article about the company, not the person, would make more sense as a notable topic, as to how it impacted the tourism business, and in that article, mention Mimi Macpherson as the 1995 leader, not the 2007 3-DUI violator required by a balanced BLP article. Likewise, for the roles as spokesperson, to be short phrases within any articles about the products endorsed, in lists of other people promoting those companies, not all collected as a coatrack of puffery to fill an article with activities as a celeb-resume. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at least two of the tourism awards were specifically awarded to her, as an individual, and the business awards (and associated cover shot) were certainly for her personally. If you feel the current article is a "coatrack of puffery", you are of course free to improve it, but many above would seem to disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously and clearly notable, well-documented in dozens of reliable sources. Does she have a famous sister? Yes. Does that mean she cannot be notable in her own right? No, of course not - Emily Bronte is not only notable because of Charlotte. She owned a multi-million-dollar enterprise for which she won multiple awards. She was featured on the cover of two magazines, including one in which she was named a top young Australian businesswoman. She was named national businesswoman of the year by a national organization. She has been the "face" of two companies, and has acted as a spokewoman for several more. She has appeared in multiple television shows. She is a radio and television personality. She is frequently sought out for quotes on environmental issues, and has lobbied extensively on the topic. The article is well-sourced and balanced, and the subject clearly passes WP:GNG, as demonstrated by the coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bronte sisters were all highly significant writers in the history of English literature, and each was highly notable in her own right. I really can't see a parallel to the McPherson sisters; that's a stretch. (olive (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

We shouldn't confuse significant to the individual to notability.

A string of such significant but non notable events does not equal notability.

As an aside:The section on DUI is highly inappropriate in a BLP article . Again while a DUI is significant in an individual's life highlighting the details in one of our articles is wrong and can help damage the LP in their real life. (olive (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Agree, the comparison is a stretch. A closer comparison would be the Austen sisters, Jane Austen & Cassandra Austen.

Jane_Austen has been viewed 123587 times in the last 30 days.

Cassandra_Austen has been viewed 2550 times in the last 30 days.

One is much more notable than the other, but this in not a reason to no cover the lesser. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're not comparing a supermodel to Jane Austen one of the giants in the history of English literature are we? And I'd question the notability of Cassandra Austen. She is mentioned in reference to her famous sister and the sources on her are weak. Certainly in the academic world she is not notable except in relation to her sister. My point is that if an article on Cassandra Austen is appropriate it is because of the relationship she had to Jane, and to Jane's immense stature. A supermodel doesn't have that kind of historical/literary stature.(olive (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Strong Keep - Passes WP:GNG without any reasonable doubt. Falls outside WP:BLP1E thanks to her multiple achievements. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i have trouble finding references about her that arent prefaced, "Mimi Macpherson, sister of Elle". the gossip industry and its perversion of even generally legitimate media to leach into personal lives for titillating scandal is frankly appalling. And wikipedians should be ashamed of joining such company. This is a clear case where WP:IAR actually WOULD be a benefit to the encyclopedia.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The preface is the problem with any familial relationship where one (or multiple) siblings is better known, even if you're Danni Minogue there are enough news articles out there labelling you "Kylie's Sister" or "Sister of Kylie" and heaven help you if you happen to be a Baldwin or Osmond. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who WASNT the sister of Elle who had a small business and a couple of DUI convictions would have an article??? Puh-eeeese. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who had a small business, got some national publicity with it, some coverage in the news of substance abuse problems - also you forgot Radio Presenter, appeared on on Reality TV show, worked on documentaries for the Discovery Channel? You must be thinking of Chris Richardson - no relationship to Elle MacPherson... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or Billy Lane? WWGB (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Famous sister... business woman... done for DUI. I was thinking Khloé Kardashian. Boy, was I way off. Hawkeye7 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - Marginal notability, best known for famous relative, has requested deletion in the past == delete. Coverage is due entirely to her last name. What this reminds me of a bit is the discussion for Serene Branson, where a bunch of busybody editors go scrape and trawl the internet for every scrappy quibble of errata to try to build up faux notability. This is the kind of thing that brings this project into disrepute; a cavalier, tabloid approach to article writing. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's distressing her. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Passes GNG with flying colours, notability has easily been corroborated with the sources provided. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 13:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability not marginal enough for the discretionary delete. Sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a recreation but a new article which clearly shows notability sufficient for inclusion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient independent references, from various sources and over extended time, to satisfy WP:BASIC. WWGB (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of beaches in the Philippines[edit]

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

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of ~~place~~ places. There are only three actual beach articles in the list. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of a bigger scheme of beaches by country. This is a perfectly valid list that meets WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "bigger scheme of beaches by country" but not for lists of beaches. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List of places linked with more notable and larger countries seems perfectly fine and very helpful to many people. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a directory of place"—I have no idea what the hell this is supposed to mean. If I take it literally, then somehow an editor who has been around since 2004 is ignorant of WP:5P, which states that Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers," of which the latter quite literally is a geographical directory. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, yes, but is the list useful? Does it improve WP? Is it here becuase WP editors seem to have a fixation with lists regardless of whether they are of use to the Readers - you know - Those To Whom We Serve. We don't really know do we. Lets just delete it and move on to the next problem. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how, exactly, would the absence of this list be more useful to readers than its presence? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep list of real places (and real places are notable by default) with no policy-based argument for deletion advanced. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all deletion arguments need to be based on policy. Most are based on guidelines if they do in fact exist at all. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Piedmont Unified School District. Current version of article will remain in history in case sources are ever found demonstrating particular notability for this school, or if anyone wants to merge some of the content. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wildwood Elementary School (California)[edit]

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

delete, or redirect to Piedmont Unified School District, per notability guidelines for elementary schools. no facts in this article were merged yet to the PUSD article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable; references are all to run-of-the-mill sources (e.g. lists of schools) or non-independent sources; purely of local interest. Merging some of the info might be an alternative, but it seems excessively detailed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most info on the page is irrelevant and only applicable to those specifically interested in the school. User Talk:Willdude123 13:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- To Piedmont Unified School District, per nom. Non-notable schools get disambiguated or redirected to school districts or communities. Disambiguation already exists at Wildwood Elementary School listing one in Canada and two in California, including this one. Dru of Id (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are others in search engine results which may be added to the disambiguation page by any interested editor. Dru of Id (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Merge There are no "notability guidelines for elementary schools". Elementary schools should be considered from the perspective of WP:ORG and WP:OUTCOMES suggests that the better outcome would be to merge this means that no information is lost through the removal of this article. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Piedmont Unified School District. current version of article will remain in history in case sources are ever found demonstrating particular notability for this school. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egbert W. Beach Elementary School[edit]

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

delete, or redirect to Piedmont Unified School District, per notability guidelines for elementary schools. notable facts already merged to PUSD article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- Notability not established, all coverage is routine; redirect to Piedmont Unified School District, per nom. Dru of Id (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A school of substantial historical value. More/better sources would fill out the article and make it worthwhile. WP:NRVE suggests that articles should be kept where an assumption can be made that notability-confirming sources may exist. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Piedmont Unified School District. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank C. Havens Elementary School[edit]

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

per policy on notability of elementary schools, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. can reasonably be made a redirect. i have merged the few notable facts into the Piedmont Unified School District article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- Notability not established, all coverage is routine; redirect to Piedmont Unified School District, per nom. Dru of Id (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A school of substantial historical value. More/better sources would fill out the article and make it worthwhile. WP:NRVE suggests that articles should be kept where an assumption can be made that notability-confirming sources may exist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjel (talk • contribs) 05:49, 14 April 2012‎

Age =/= historic. Not original building, not NRHP listed, no momentous events unlike Emma E. Booker Elementary School. 54 results of routine coverage of class size, follow on schools, grades, open house. Dru of Id (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Littleton Coin Company[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. WP is not the Yellow Pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a major mailorder firm going back for decades. An important entity in American numismatic history. Coin World and Numismatic News will have significant coverage in their archives, for sure. Carrite (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Coin World's files are digitized. Littleton dates back to 1945 and was a pioneer of coins-on-approval-by-mail marketing, very much akin to H.E. Harris & Co. for stamps (see: Henry Ellis Harris). They cater to neophytes and have a very large market presence through mass advertising. A parallel can certainly be drawn to Haldeman-Julius Publications and their mass marketing of Little Blue Books in the 1920s and 1930s... There is absolutely no question in my mind that this company is the subject of multiple instances of substantial, independent, published coverage although I've got no links at the moment. Carrite (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coin World and Numismatic News are hardly reliable sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The weekly numismatic press very much is a reliable source. CW for years had a circulation of 100,000 and NN has been around since the 1950s. They are major, long running, specialist publications with high quality standards and professional journalists on staff — not "pay to play" publications. Carrite (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reached out to Littleton for help locating sources and here is a first batch of material which a person there suggests:

- Franklin, Amy, "Old West Coins Emerge from Vault," Wisconsin State Journal, April 24, 1999, p. 8B.
- "Man Finds $20 Heirloom Worth $250,000," Florida Times Union, November 27, 2000, p. A4.
- O'Traynor, Michael, A Decent Boldness: The Life Achievement of Maynard Sundman at Littleton Stamp & Coin Company, Littleton, New Hampshire: Littleton Coin Press, 1995, 330 p.
- Rare Coins Roar Back into Circulation," Daily News (Los Angeles, New York), July 24, 1997, p. N2.
- Stecklow, Steve, "Firm Reflects Small-Town Virtues," Philadelphia Inquirer, July 21, 1992, p. A01.
- Tirrell-Wysocki, David, "Littleton Firm Hits Jackpot with Old Coin Cache," Associated Press, November 16, 1998.
- McCormack, Kathy, “Littleton Coin Company Claims ‘Ike’ Coins in Montana Vault From Denver U.S. Mint,” Associated Press, December 5, 2011.

I believe she will be in touch with more material on Monday. The book on Sundman is self-published under our rules, but I will point that out as an outstanding possible source to be mined if this is closed a Keep, as I expect it will be. Getting to information on the company through the biography of its founder is probably the best way to go here.

HIS OBITUARY WAS IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, that counts as one iron-clad, rock-solid source in this defense, at a minimum. Like I say, I am 100% sure that the numismatic press has substantial material on the firm and look forward to learning of that soon. Carrite (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The STECKLOW PIECE from the Philadelphia Inquirer is another "keeper" for our purposes, that's two good sources at a bare minimum, not counting the self-published book — which I would. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info on the MAYNARD SUNDMAN LECTURE SERIES from the National Postal Museum. Carrite (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THIS OBIT from the Hartford Courant notes that Sundman owned both Littleton Coin Co. and from 1974 the Mystic Stamp Co. — another very major mailorder retailer. Sundman is 107 miles over the notability bar, worst case scenario here would be for the Littleton piece to be userfied to me and rewritten as a bio of him with a redirect. But why is that necessary, I ask? Carrite (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's ANOTHER OBIT, this one from the Syracuse Post-Standard. Carrite (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is right in the wheelhouse for HighBeam... "The coin is all their realm in Littleton," — The Boston Globe, Nov. 5, 2006. Substantial independent coverage of the company, not obit-related. Carrite (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"HOARD OF AMERICAN COINS MAY BRING UP TO $7 MILLION," Buffalo News, Feb. 6, 1999. Article details Littleton having purchased "what is being described as the largest known hoard of American coins: more than 1.7 million Indian Head cents, Liberty Head nickels and Buffalo nickels, some worth hundreds of dollars apiece." Carrite (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another piece on Littleton's activities, "A THOUGHT FOR YOUR PENNIES," from the Bergen County Record, July 24, 1997. Carrite (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is also independent substantial coverage of the company in a feature article on its current president, Don Sundman, son of Myron (above): "Childhood hobby now big business," The Business Journal, February 23, 2001. This illustrates why it is best to have a piece on the company rather than a redirecting biography piece on its founder or one on its current president. Carrite (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That should be more than sufficient and it doesn't include a single thing written before the middle 1990s and this company goes back half a century before that, nor does it include a single word from the numismatic press, which no doubt has visited this subject multiple times over the decades. Carrite (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – notable company. The topic passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Thanks to User:Carrite for the significant efforts to demonstrate this topic's notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To use obituaries as sources for a company and to claim that numismatics publications are reliable sources is clutching at straws. It shopuld be easy to find sources for a WP article. If no it is not a notable topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose I should credit you for tenacity rather than getting all pissed off over what seems to be obstinance in the face of a barrage of reliable sources that demonstrate that this 65-year old firm passes WP:GNG. So I will. I will also note that nowhere in our guidelines is there a requirement that sources "should be 'easy' to find" for a topic to be notable. They must simply exist, which I have demonstrated. Best, Carrite (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:CORPDEPTH. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easy keep based on all of the sources highlighted thus far in the discussion.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Now that sources have been provided, this company easily passes WP:CORP. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:CORPDEPTH. --68.111.239.233 (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 24001–25000#901. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 23:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24968 Chernyakhovsky[edit]

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

Sourced only by a database entry and with no hits in Google scholar, this clearly fails WP:NASTRO. A prod was already attempted, but removed. I tried redirecting it to List of minor planets: 24001–25000 (as NASTRO suggests) but that was reverted too. Seemingly the only reason for having this article is WP:ITEXISTS, but that's not good enough. There are many similar articles that probably deserve similar fates but that's also not a valid reason for keeping this one; see WP:WAX. David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominator has a political agenda to delete everything Alexander Chernyakhovsky related. These are two separate issues, and the nominator is confused. Also, in List of minor planets: 24001–25000 (and related lists) there are many such entries, deleting one is not appropriate, keep them all or delete them all. However, please note that the article is of sufficient quality, and properly sourced, albeit a stub. The claim that it is not notable, I think, is incorrect. It was named after a high school student after winning a prestigious competition, which I think is a big deal. Deleting the article, and those like it, will be a significant negative impact to the perceived prestige of the award. I admit, I reverted the article because the nominator stripped it of all content and redirected it when I removed the a tag, because I thought it was spurious. I have read this article before, and those like it, and found them useful, partially of their google ranking. I did not understand the "AfD" lingo the nominator used, and was not aware it meant deletion. I reiterate: KEEP.18.96.6.177 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)— 18.96.6.177 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Good Luck to Mr Chernyakovski :). May be one day 10, 20, 30 or 40 years later he will become sufficiently notable to have others proposing him for Wikipedia articles and not care about having or not having a Wikipedia article on himself. :) Oxy20 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this comment comes from an SPA but since when does wikipedia have a responsibility for improving the perception of prestige of an award??? Polyamorph (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appropriate nomination. Insufficient notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - all named asteroids have articles on them. It makes no sense deleting just one. Unless the information from the articles were transferred to the List of minor planets: 24001–25000 then removing all such articles would be a significant loss of information value on Wikipedia's coverage of objects in space.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be perfectly happy to prod more of them — like you I don't see a lot of point in deleting just one — but I thought it prudent to wait for the results of the AfD rather than confusing the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - If you seriously think that all these article should be deleted, I suggest that you prepare the ground my merging the important information in them (including sources/citations) into the various lists of minor planets. Note that in some cases small articles include a source, but not citations, but because they are small articles it is obvious that the source is where the information cones from (though this is, in my opinion, poor style). If you were to merge the information, you would need to do it properly, and put these references in as citations - which would mean checking that they really did contain the information that they are supposedly a source for. This would be a lot of work. It would be much easier, and at least as satisfactory to leave all the articles as they are, and delete none of them.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toddy1. I suggest opening up a wider RfC on all relevant articles, whether or not they should be merged into the main list article. As Toddy1 says, deleting the individual articles will lead to a loss of important information not currently included in the main list article.Polyamorph (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Redirect (to preserve page history) after comment by CT highlighted the previous RFC on this. RJH's comment regarding redirection is sensible and in line with the guideline. Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are excellent databases that cover these very minor bodies, there is no reason for WP to copy that unless there are good reasons (like reliable sources in addition to those databases). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. This article appears to fail WP:NASTRO, and is one of the vast number created by User:Merovingian during the spree that resulted in the creation of that guideline. In response to User:Polyamorph, we've had that RFC: It's the first thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects), and resulted in promotion of WP:NASTRO to guideline status. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable and properly written and cited. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect Zero evidence of notability, no significant coverage. See in particular Wikipedia:NASTRO#Objects named after famous individuals or characters and Wikipedia:NASTRO#Criteria 2 and 3. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_21#Step_TWO it fails my (<20km in size; H>12; There are 5078 objects in the solar system with H<12) idea. Perhaps merge to Alexander Chernyakhovsky and Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. -- Kheider (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was named after a student who won a medical science prize, and from what I gather, it was so named as part of the package. Doesn't necessarily make it notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To the IP for the first keep vote, no, there is no agenda here. You were told this on Alex's AFD. To the keep vote above by LogicalCreator, no, it does not meet even our general notability guidelines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Clearly lacks encyclopedic notability. ylloh (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planets: 24001–25000#901 per the preferred solution in WP:NASTRO. This subsection contains 24968 Chernyakhovsky, making it easier to find. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate "list of" page. AstroCog (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about this asteroid nor about the person it is named after (for getting a 2nd place in some school science competition) whose page is also proposed for deletion. Clear failure to meet WP:NASTRO Oxy20 (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per WP:NASTRO. There is no point in spending time and effort to agree a guideline if it is not put into practice. JonH (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to namesake's article, assuming that article survives current AfD per WP:NASTRO and the discussions therein. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, should the namesake article be deleted, then redirect to appropriate minor planet list. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list where some useful information is located, and this is a viable search term for its entry in the list. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it is important enough to have an official designation, it certainly passes the bar for inclusion. I'm not opposed to redirecting per se, but don't feel it is necessary. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that a standard designation does not denote importance. It just means it has a more widely accepted label. This is all covered on WP:NASTRO. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to relevant list per WP:NASTRO (which I'd never read before, but is very logical on this point).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep astronomical objects are academic. Fotaun (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles on every one though, please see WP:NASTRO.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see how minor astronomical objects, basically small (on the astronomical scales) pieces of rock are routinely academic. In any case "academic" is not criteria for inclusion. Any paper or piece of original reserach could also be described as "academic". Oxy20 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Per nominator and other arguments that it fails NASTRO. If it doesn't pass the GNG or a subject-matter guide such as NASTRO, then policy dictates deletion. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge the full information to the list article. Personally, I think we could justify individual articles on all named asteroids, but I think the compromise of using a list is workable. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 23:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CATUAV[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. Sure, it has references but I ask of all the inclusionists out there in AfD land "Why should this article be in an encyclopaedia?". It is a contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The inclusionists would of course respond to your question with "Why should this article not be in an encyclopedia". •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company has proven its notability with the fact that has been pioneer using UAV in some civil apps in the European market. Furthermore it has received some international and important prizes that give credit to this. Everything is demonstrated with the proper references. User:Jsalvador4 —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Has references, particularly the coverage in El 9 Nou and Avion Revue, ergo is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-written and sourced article. Notable as well. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... the over-reliance on self-published sources needs to be addressed (in lieu of 1 external link to the company's website) but has sufficient 3rd party sources to pass wp:gng. Wikipelli ^Talk 12:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems well sourced and notable. User Talk:Willdude123 14:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable company. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just look at that article by the BBC (a national/international level news outlet) covering some of the technology they're working with. Add in the other references and you'll find that this is clearly a note worthy article. To Alan Liefting, AfD is for considering the removal of articles that certainly shouldn't be on Wikipedia, not considering what articles should be kept. That's a policy topic, and moreover a pillar topic. Lord Arador (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not true. There is no clear policy (only a guideline at WP:COMPANY) so we have to fight it out at the AfDs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious spam example. This single purpose account has been created to promote the company CATUAV in the English, Catalan and Spanish Wikipedias. In ca:wiki and es:wiki the article has also been nominated for deletion. 62.82.198.2 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC) By the way, in this link you can find information in catalan language about the amount of people working for this company: four (quatre treballadors). Would you call this a notable company?[reply]
- Thanks for doing that thorough research. It makes the case for deletion even stronger that I thought. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my first article and I am trying to collaborate in the wiki, however i have not found any kind of help, only people complaining... I have also extended the UAV article in the Spanish wiki, so this articles are not my only work...I would like to get real help in modifying those article, not only complaints. I would like to collaborate in the wiki however I’m finding it quite discouraging if there is so much trouble in doing it. Thank you.User:Jsalvador4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.243.114 (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I can sympathise with you. I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time but I still don't know my way around. The bureaucratic systems and editors must make it a nightmare for newbies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case it is more than probable that the user who created this article in three different languages (Jsalvador4) is promoting his own company. If the company is relevant enough as to have an article in Wikipedia, he should wait for someone else to write it instead of doing it himself. 62.82.198.2 (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see this as spam. The description may need a little condensation and adjusting, but that's an editing question (using bullet points for the features is not encyclopedia style, for example). As such things go, this is a fairly good start. Since the company is notable, as shown by the sources, it does not matter who wrote it. it's enough that we review it and edit it. We still do have the principle that anyone can edit, and a good thing too, or we'd lose the opportunity to have articles on many notable commercial products and firms--and many non-commercial organizations also. Even if it's COI, COI editing is permitted, though people's first attempts normally need some further work done on them.We are making at attempt to provide such helps, see for example WP:WikiProject Cooperation. We may need to publicize the availability of people to offer assistance. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, any help improving the article and giving it an encyclopedia style is welcome. Thank you to those that are collaborating.--Jsalvador4 (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 22:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

‡biblios.net[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Non-notable online database. Appears to be dormant. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However lackluster the article may be, the content is there. Appears to be very notable and useful to people. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the sources presented in the first AfD. SL93 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sources added to the article:

Oder, Norman (January 27, 2009). "As ‡biblios.net Emerges, a New Opportunity for Catalogers (and Competition with OCLC)?". Library Journal. Retrieved April 13, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
J. Hane, Paula (February 2, 2009). "Open Solutions for Libraries Gain Momentum". Information Today. Retrieved April 13, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per the sources I presented above; the topic passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Toolbox[edit]

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

Doesn't establish notability, written like an ad. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's because it is an ad. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Tom Reedy. Wikipelli ^Talk 15:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any page that characterizes the product as a "solution." Obvious promotional language. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topic appears to fail WP:GNG for inclusion in Wikipedia. After searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources. Mostly just directory listings and articles published by Fortes, the software's developer. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn given that one month is probably close enough to the release date, which I obviously misread or something. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Up All Night – The Live Tour DVD[edit]

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

Non-notable DVD, fails WP:PUTEFFORT, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it was jumping the gun to say that the article failed WP:PUTEFFORT. The article was nominated for deletion just four minutes after it was created, and the article creator was apparently still working on it at the time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't fix the fact that the only sources I found were Amazon and the like. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly premature creation; I'm sure it will get lots of reviews when it released next month, but as yet it has no coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable and popular. Well-written article. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it is being released next month worldwide so why delete if it's going to be made again anyway AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the above comment. It's going to be made again anyways, and it hasn't been released yet, and when it does there will be more information and reviews etc.--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to New Girl (TV series). The content of this article is still accessible in the page history, so feel free to merge any of it to the target article. However, after a quick glance, it seems to me that very little of the content would be appropriate for merging. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 22:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True Americans Drinking Game[edit]

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

Non-notable drinking game. Only mentions of it are in association with reviews of the episode, and in blogs, with no evidence that it's moved beyond that. ... discospinster _talk 01:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This guy does not understand pop culture.... it spreads when people look up the rules on google and find the wiki page. Since the game was featured on the most popular show on FOX it is worth noting that the searches for the games rules will be highly sought after. GeneralFubar (talk • contribs) 02:02, 12 April 2012

Wikipedia is not your social networking site or Know Your Meme. It's not supposed to "spread" something like an internet meme, it's supposed to present something after it achieves mainstream notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why wikipedia is slowly dying. funny thing how thousands of memes are on here and thousands of drinking games. An encyclopedia is for spreading information. Wikipedia is meant to be a source for new information that is for the use of the people and should not be dictated by people who are tough behind a keyboard. In one day the game has been a trending topic on twitter and google searches in the last 24 hours. ride the new wave or get out of the ocean, it's time to bring wikipedia back to the users. GeneralFubar (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 April 2012

"Wikipedia is meant to be a source for new information." No it's not; read WP:GNG. This won't change no matter how much proselytizing you do. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Not notable and improperly referenced. Could possibly be merged with New Girl. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with New Girl. I can't find any evidence of notability of this game on it's own.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 14:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be Merged per WP:ATD into New Girl, which seems a reasonable outcome, it really needs the OR trimmed, including the reverse-engineered rules and HOWTO-lite. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this this can be merged with New Girl, however, it's useful--first link i clicked when interested in finding out more about the game was wikipedia.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.189.141 (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to new girl Gaijin42 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Sorting Algorithms[edit]

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

I'm not finding a lot of references for this subject. "abstract sorting algorithm" comes up with 26 "unique" results. I've already deleted what appears to be some kind of computer-programmer in-jokes, and what's left is basically a definition of sorting algorithm with some funny stuff at the end. ... discospinster _talk 01:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD A10 - all non-trivial content is covered by Sorting algorithm. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – devoid of meaningful content and not a plausible search term. --Lambiam 09:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 09:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bogosort covers similar ground more clearly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Close to a G1 speedy deletion as an article "consisting entirely of incoherent text". —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 22:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Residential colleges of the University of Queensland[edit]

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

Collection of twelve hostels non-notable hostels. One independent reference between them. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the sources may not be sufficient for individual articles on the Colleges of this university, although they are for some universities, surely they are notable enough for an article that covers all of them. I suggest it should be tagged as requiring sources. These colleges are a notable part of the university, have a history that connects them to outside the university and have been lead and contained members who are notable. I think we need to look for sources, but I am tied up and not that well. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable list Greglocock (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ keep - there were previously individual college articles which were all redirected to this list in January for being unsourced (Cromwell, Duchesne, Emmanuel, St John's, St Leo's, Union, International, Women's, King's and Gatton). Checking the histories, some of the articles are hopeless but some of them are more than capable of being salvaged once the cruft that tends to accompany such articles is culled. If at least one or two of them can be rewritten into a viable form, then this list has a purpose and should be kept. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support provisional keep but with the caveat that at least 3 will neet to be salvaged. One needs no list, and two can just inter-link. Three is enough for a list IMO. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To keep this article, what is needed is in-depth coverage in independent sources. This unsigned comment was added by Stuartyeates (talk). This note was added manually by me. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of GNG hits at the NLA archive, here: http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=St+Leo%27s+college ... The search is for St Leo's but encompasses most colleges in the list. Don't have time to salvage each individual article right now, maybe next week, but to my mind these sources bring the list to an unqualified keep.-Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more or less per Bduke. I will contact some of the colleges and see if I can get some references - given the history a lot of them have I would consider it highly unlikely that some of them, especially the older ones, don't have anything at all. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, the colleges definitely exist and have a long history although much of the information about them is unlikely to be online (and thus harder to find). Francis Bond (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a unit of a university which has an online catalog [26] and a comprehensive retrospective archival digitisation program [27]. If the university considered the unit noteworthy, there would be online references. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these are independent residential colleges, not a unit of the University of Queensland -Puckpetspot (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable storms on the Great Lakes[edit]

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

Written more like an essay than an article. --ChromaNebula (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 12. Snotbot t • c » 01:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a perfect article, but provides interesting information with some references, and scope for improvement. "Written more like an essay than an article" is not reason for deletion if the article could be rewritten (see WP:BEGIN). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please note that there is an active move discussion in progress for this article. Powers ^T 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MemoRamso (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The style may not be encyclopedic, but the content is. While I would suggest that List of storms on the Great Lakes would be more in conformity with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#List naming, this is a good place to put information about notable storms that do not need their own separate article. It also seems to meet the stand-alone list criteria of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists. --Bejnar (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Santos[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league, which remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not received significant media coverage therefore fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the Belgian Second Division & 4th, 5th tiers of German football aren't fully professional. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We enerally do not keep articles like this. I really do not see the point of a redirect as a useful search term--surely anyone would type UNSW or the full university name. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNSW Accommodation[edit]

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

Non-notable collection of hostels. PROD concern was Non-notable linkfarm of hostel accommodation. No independent refs. Removed by article creator with the comment (Re: Proposed deletion: UNSW is a major university in Australia, and many potential students refer to Wikipedia for information, including accommodation. This is a valuable resource for them.) Looking for sources finds self-published sources, particularly promotional self published sources. Beyond the complete lack of independent sources, I see the main problem as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is basically just a reiteration of a limited amount of information from the university's own housing web site. No independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List of non-notable hostels, fails WP:ORG. Adequately covered at UNSW#Accommodation. WWGB (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but merge anything useful (and non-redundant) to UNSW#Accommodation. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlike the similar AfD above, this one does seem to be largely redundant due to the individual colleges having their own pages. Info about the less-notable "village type" accommodation can be merged to the UNSW article per Jogarth.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UNSW#Accommodation. Plausible search term, but not independently notable. Jenks24 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against redirecting to an appropriate target. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hamilton (musician)[edit]

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

Does not appear to a very notable musician Darkness Shines (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not independently notable: can't find anything beyond mentions of his name as a musician in other people's bands. Note that there's also a jazz saxophonist with the same name. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've located and added several references to the article, but don't think there is enough there to meet WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect AllyD's sources are good but there's still no indication of individual notability, even if he's worked with some notable acts. Suggest redirect to Earthworks (band). ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 10:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus seems clear after the relisting;i have no personal opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Making of Star Wars[edit]

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

Article Fails WP:GNG and appears to have no hope of improvement Lucia Black (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a documentary that aired on national network television about one of the biggest films of all time is hardly something that fails WP:GNG - while the article needs sourcing, keep in mind this is a 35 year old program - "no hope of improvement" is clearly an incorrect opinion, as I found reliable cites with a cursory Google search. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment many things aired on national network that also fail notability. To believe everything related to the main article is notable is a sign of msguidance. Also hear-believe will not work here. Sayng you found the sources but not provide proof is a sense of WP:OWN.Lucia Black (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - perhaps you should try looking at my recent edits to the article where I added sources before you accuse me again of not offering the proof you want. Your condescending tone is not appreciated. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. No opinion yet, but IMDb should not be cited as a reference, and the rest are fairly weak as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the "proof" provided was over retail information. Which does not prove notability.Lucia Black (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Wikipedia:Notability (films) also needs to be taken into account along with WP:GNG. Betty Logan (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as Wikipedia:Notability (films), I think that there is enough information on this particular film that it would clutter up the Richard Schickel page, the writer of the film (who has an entry while the director does not). This is one of the criteria for "Other evidence of notability." As for the references, not all of them are of the highest quality, but it's not required that they all be in order to establish notability. The review from Entertainment Weekly is just one example of a critical review on the film by a nationally known critic. Lord Arador (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what info is that? No development. No reception and even one review wont save it. It has to be information backed up through third party such as reception. Premise is mainly making it and thatg doesnt require sourcing.Lucia Black (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lord Arador. Significant cleanup of sourcing would be good, but AfD is not for cleanup. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the probblem isnt clean up. Its lack of sources and third party opinion to make it notable.Lucia Black (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I contend that "no hope of improvement" was not merely wrong in retrospect, after citations were added, but failed WP:BEFORE: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.". Anarchangel (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per MikeWazowski. Not every article needs to ba a GA; there's enough out there to satisfy the WP:GNG at least. Nominator didn't follow through enough on WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus seems clear after the relisting; I have no personal opinion of my own DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SP FX: The Empire Strikes Back[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and has no hope of improvement. Lucia Black (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 5. Snotbot t • c » 23:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a documentary that aired on national network television about one of the biggest films of its time is hardly something that fails WP:GNG - while the article needs sourcing, keep in mind this is a 32 year old program - "no hope of improvement" is clearly an incorrect opinion, as I found a reliable cite with a cursory Google search. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Wikipedia:Notability (films) also needs to be taken into account along with WP:GNG. Betty Logan (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sometimes referred to as SPFX: The Empire Strikes Back. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Again MIkewazowski. Notability isn't based on the main article's success. This article has to be proven it is notable. I honestly do not see how old the topic of the article matters either. The information is only release. WHich in turn anyone can make any article out of that. However does not make them any more notable topics. If you provide information such as development and reception, that would definitely prove ts notability.Lucia Black (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re "hope of improvement": mentions in print: there's substantial coverage in NY Public Library, Bibliographic guide to technology, vol 2, G. K. Hall., 1983 (a portion of this is on Google Books) and a mention of uncertain length in Gene Wright, The science fiction image: the illustrated encyclopedia of science fiction in film, television, radio and the theater, Facts on File, 1983. You can find the original TV Guide listing on Google Books too. Another mention attesting to its fan value.[28] --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the print sources found by Colapeninsula. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that those print sources provided by Colapeninsula help establish notability, and they certainly show that the references can be improved and expanded. Again, as for Wikipedia:Notability (films) there is definitely enough information on this topic that it would clutter up the Richard Schickel page. Lord Arador (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on main reason for keep the source barely provide much info on sp fx other than a small opinion. One small out of context mention. Can we find more direct source of notability.Lucia Black (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason at all to delete this article. Very well-written and properly referenced. Also very notable. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK stop lying sorry for the incivlity. but i honestly hope this doesn't get do to vote count and can tell when someone is going to rely on democracy. well written has nothing to do with being AfD. well referenced? not true only 2, and not enough 3rd party. notable has to do with references.Lucia Black (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors who disagree with you of "lying" is incredibly uncivil. Can you not consider the possibility you were incorrect? Not all AfDs end in deletion. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've never seen someone summarize their comment/response at AFD as a "command to stop lying". Anyways, please assume good faith, and remember that just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they're lying. There's plenty of gray area in between. (In theory, even if someone was downright wrong, they could just be misinformed, which wouldn't make them a liar.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be notable enough for it to be included. Not a major documentary by any means, but that's a pretty high bar to set, and would require much pruning of articles if required. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either Move to SPFX: The Empire Strikes Back, or improve the current article with the considerably larger number of sources under that name. Not as much improved as the similarly nominated article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Making of Star Wars), but much evidence of "hope for improvement". Anarchangel (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this comment on the Wikiproject Film talk page from the nominator - "Can we please get some input in here? It would be a shame to have this be kept over one oppose." after posting the two AfDs. SL93 (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a great article, but there's enough there, or out there, to meet the WP:GNG. The potential is there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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