Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday April 23 (Tue) April 22 (Mon) April 21 (Sun) More...

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

< 9 October	11 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LightManufacturing LLC[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Source 1 is an okay reference in a specialist blog but not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources 2, 6, and 9 are obvious press releases. Source 3 is a patent application. Sources 4, 7, and 8 are YouTube videos. Source 5 is a yellow pages directory. Source 10 is an interview which is okay to list but does do much as an independent source. Note that I have also checked Google News and did not find more. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CORPDEPTH seems proven by references #s 1, 2, and 10. Other sources seem available including [| Here] and [| Here] Celtechm (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Celltech, thanks for your comments, but I think you are applying WP:CORPDEPTH incorrectly. It's worth looking at WP:RS as well. Press releases don't count at all, and blogs count very little. Same with promotional interviews. Number 2 is such an obvious press release that it includes the company's phone number at the end--it says "Please call 415-796-6475"! Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The nom's argument is persuasive. In looking for legitimate sources, is this company mentioned in the "significant detail" the GNG requires in the mainstream media? = reliable, published, third-party sources? Before any Keep proponent suggests this blog post or that suffices, what is the basis for their assertion that such sources have a reputation for reliability and fact checking, as the GNG requires? Ravenswing 09:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not enough reliable sources. Miniapolis (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Ravenswing. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There are sources, but they are not reliable because they're blogs and industry publications. The guideline says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." Clearly the sourcing in obscure industry publications fails this, and I could not find coverage in media with wider circulation and coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree the article smacks of being promotional for the company. If it attains important patents then there might be a case for for inclusion on that basis, but currently it is difficult to see that the qualifications for notability are fulfilled. Fireflo (talk) 11:49, 19 October 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 result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Association of the Prokuplje citizens in Belgrade[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no sources about this association. Not on English nor Serbian language. Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article hardly indicates the group's significance and, unfortunately, never provides a Serbian name to help broaden my search. Additionally, the two external links are dead so they are either non-existent or a mistyped URL. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian name probably starts with "Udruženje Prokupčana". Then it can be "u Beogradu" or "Beograda". In any case, GS for "Udruženje Prokupčana" shows only several facebook links.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: as an A7; the article makes no assertion of notability, credible or otherwise. Quite aside from that, c'mon. This is a small, and apparently ephemeral, startup social club. The article was created five years ago by a SPA [1] whose creation of this article (and insertion into the Prokuplje article) represents his sole Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 09:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

House of Pigniol[edit]

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

Appears not to meet the WP:GNG guideline. Hard to find any reliable sources to establish proper notability; this family produced no kings and seemingly no significant people in the politics of France, unlike, for example, the House of Plantagenet, which is clearly notable. I would suggest deletion, and if there are any individuals who are notable within this family, their inclusion in a House of Pigniol category instead of a separate article. Batard0 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no indication that this family is notable as a group. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Agricolae (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence proffered that this subject meets the GNG. As stated above, we're talking petty aristocracy with no evidence that anyone of particular note is a member -- and since notability is not inherited, an article for the family wouldn't be appropriate in any event. Ravenswing 09:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Bigué[edit]

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

The article is very poorly sourced -- just a single external link to an interview with this and one other person. google:Jean-Claude Bigué yields nothing but primary sources. The fact of having founded a bank would surely establish notability if the bank were notable, but google:Belmont Private Bank yields nothing of interest, and perhaps more significantly, searching for the French name of the bank used in the fr:Jean-Claude Bigué article, google:Banque Privée Belmont yields nothing either. Both this article and the French equivalent were created by SPAs. The article is highly promotional. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that there's a lot of COI in all this. --Stfg (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Miniapolis (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Night Calls. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brickhouse Betty[edit]

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

Non-notable webcomic. Written like an advert with lots of external links but no references. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Frankie (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/potential redirect to Night Calls. The big issue here is that while this did win an AVN award (according to the website for BB), I'm having trouble finding any reliable sources that back this up. Even when that is found, it was part of a group award and there's been precedent set to where group awards for the AVNs don't really count as an award that would give so much notability that the award itself would keep the article. It counts towards notability but doesn't give absolute notability. Other than that, there's nothing to show that this ultimately passes notability guidelines for WP:WEB. Now what we can do as a compromise is redirect the article to Night Calls, the Playboy TV show that runs some of the cartoons. We can put a brief 2-3 sentence overview of the cartoons and redirect there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Night Calls per Tokyogirl79. It sounds the more reasonable outcome. Cavarrone (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added in a few lines about it under "premise", so it's good to go on that end.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next Nature[edit]

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

NextNature is a website or, as the Wikipedia article prefers to call it, "a philosophical concept". One problem: there don't seem to be any decent independent reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. There exists stuff about it out there on the web, but it's either published by people connected with the website or it is unreliable stuff like blogs.

Though it is most probably an interesting and worthwhile project, it isn't yet a notable one. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current sources which are germane to the subject are also affiliated with it. I found a couple more potential sources with Google Books: a paragraph in a book by John Zerzan, and one sentence in book about sustainable energy. Neither qualify as "significant coverage" IMO. As Morris said, it's WP:INTERESTING but not notable. Perhaps in the future it will be, but not yet. Braincricket (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Worthy causes need RS too. Miniapolis (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Bigg Boss. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Bigg Boss 6[edit]

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

Almost entirely a copyvio from the program's website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Indian television article! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just deleting an article is not the solution. Encourage editors to contribute to this article and rephrase the copyvio content in your own words so that it can be kept. Warnings and threats provide no solution to this issue. --I'm Titan nium^chat 09:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its idiotic to delete this article. its about a popular show many people stumble from internet over this article. as for deleting the copyright content, bravo you just managed to scare off another writer from wikipedia. why don't you try encouraging the same editor to rewrite the article accordingly. Deleting the article is no solution. 117.225.137.5 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC) — 117.225.137.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - This is sixth season of this show, the articles of the previous seasons are in good state. As time passes the quality/content of article is increasing. -Abhishikt (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support everyone. You guys have no idea how much likeness do I have for Bigg Boss articles. Season 5 started with no interest from anyone at all. I was a resident reader but The article wasn't updated for a whole two weeks hence i had to take over. I'm doing the same for the sixth season and these bullies aren't letting me do it. Plus they keep filling up my talk page with warnings just cause i created pages for the housemates who don't have articles on wikipedia. Like there's more to life than just hatred. --I'm Titan nium^chat 06:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Major indian television show. No problem with notability. There are scores of articles on individual episodes of western tv shows! I do not get the point of this deletion proposal. If there are concerns over copy vio, that can be dealt with by editing the article. This should be a speedy keep.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many keeps more required to remove this tag? --I'm Titan nium^chat 07:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Major copyvio ~~(which I'm about to delete most of now)~~, needs to be entirely re-written. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 19:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, it's more confusing to figure out which news source copied Wikipedia, and which source Wikipedia copied. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 19:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There's no telling who copied whom. Almost half of his world copy pastes from Wikipedia. The content we post is immediately copy pasted into making new articles on blogs and other website. It aint our fault so remove this tag and live happily. -- I'm Titanium ^chat 07:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please show some integrity Imtitanium. It is disgraceful on your part to say such a statement. Times of India published a summary of the day 2 happenings in this article on 9th October, which you have copied and pasted to the article on 10th October. Its the same case with the summary of all the days. The Revision history says it all. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your so concerned why don't you go ahead and rephrase the copyright content, ehh? considering how much integrity you own. I'm sure you'll do a very good job at it and, in turn, you'll be an inspiration to young wiki users. Wow. Sounds like a treat. -- I'm Titanium ^chat 13:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm! You expect some one else to clean the garbage that you have left. I don't mind doing that, because thats what I regularly do at Wikipedia. But, I haven't watched the show and I don't have time to spare for this article. I just wanted to say one thing. This kind of garbage sprouting is one of the main reasons why Wikimedia Foundation faces a lot of legal problems. Its better the article has nothing rather than copyrighted stuff. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yippie, we have a volunteer. Normally people who criticize others for copyright issues never have the integrity to fix things if given the same situation. It's easy to points fingers than lending a hand. Mate you don't have to watch the show. Just rephrase those summaries. Thanks for helping Wikipedia mate. What a good sport you are! Cmon don't waste any of that busy time of yours. Off you go to rephrase. Good Luck. -- I'm Titanium ^chat 13:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have executed the better option that I mentioned. By the way, this is not called as 'lending a hand', this is called 'Removing garbage'. If you want to know what 'lending a hand' means, visit Help desk or reference desk or some collaborations of the week/month. --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the integrity part? I thought you had it in you more than me. LOL. Don't chicken out. As i said, Pointing fingers is easier than actually being any good to the articles. If any of you editors are genuinely concerned about the article, don't waste your time tagging warnings but start rephrasing the copyvio content. You are wikipedia contributors, make your contributions useful rather than humiliating and scaring editors away. -- I'm Titanium ^chat 14:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who remove copyvio from articles exhibit integrity much more than those who put it. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the tags on the page. Its a vague case of close paragraphing but not copyvio.-- I'm Titanium ^chat 15:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- First keep vote is the accused copyvio editor
- Second keep vote is of an anonymous editor, who has only that edit in Wikipedia. See Special:Contributions/117.225.137.5 I don't know who is he and from where he found this page!
- Dwaipayan's vote is legitimate, but still it may be called a WP:CANVAS as it has been posted here (since Dwaipayan is an experienced editor, we should consider his vote as legit.)
- I don't know about Abhishikt. But, again a talk page message to vote here

I have not seen how many talk page messages he has posted, I am adding a ((Not a ballot)) here!--Tito Dutta (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. I encouraged them to take part not to vote. I wanted opinions not votes. Please stop blowing it out of proportion. The tag has been there for too long and i encouraged editors to share opinions. OMG. Like seriously.

I wote this :Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigg Boss 6 regarding an issue with which your opinion may be of value. Thanks It doesn't show any where that i haev told them to vote. I wanted ppl to take part in the discussion. Wow. You really made me sound like a villian there. Unbeleievable. -- I'm Titanium ^chat 17:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you were only asking those editors to give their opinions here. What was your criteria for selecting which editors to ask? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course people who had a history with Bigg Boss and know what it is. People who are at least indian. people who have a sound idea of what Bigg Boss actually is. Is this criteria enough for you? -- I'm Titanium ^chat 12:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you did not consistently apply this criteria when selecting which editors to approach. That is, whether or not it was your intention, people may assume that rather than asking every editor with a good knowledge of Bigg Boss, you asked only those editors who met the criteria and whom you believed would contribute an opinion in your favour. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaipayanc and Abhishikt voted much before the talk page messages. So, I don't think its WP:CANVAS --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Further information about the copyvio may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_Repeatedly_inserting_copyrighted_material and on the article's talk page --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Archived to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Editor_Repeatedly_inserting_copyrighted_material. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 05:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article Bigg Boss. The main article is much better. The annual articles are mostly fancruft/listcruft. --John Nagle (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's copyvio? delete the copyvio content. Why merge it? what kinda stupid knockhead would consider that? It's a major indian show. Major. Major. -- I'm Titanium ^chat 09:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imtitanium, watch your words. This is a personal attack and could lead to you being blocked. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have already proved to me how useless to wikipedia i am. I choose not to talk to you. I have not addressed you to begin with. Please stop accusing me. I'm done with the whole discussion. Delete it, merge it, do whatever with it. I dont care anymore. I've got important things to worry about.-- I'm Titanium ^chat 14:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Digg Reel[edit]

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

Little-known, canceled podcast fails to meet WP:N, WP:WEB, and WP:RS. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only two sources that aren't dead are to Digg Real episodes/videos themselves. At least I think that's the case, since they wouldn't play in my browser (Firefox) for some reason. I don't see any real evidence of Notability here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The discussion has shown that apart from press releases and fist-party sources there is insufficient reliable material by uninvolved sources to establish notability. Attempts to improve the article by adding more sources have only resulted in more unreliable references that are connected to the subject. Based on the sockpuppet investigation I am also ignoring any votes / remarks in this discussion made by the accounts listed there. While currently not being promotional, the article has still not been significantly improved since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SolidCAM (2nd nomination) was closed as delete in February 2012. De728631 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solidcam[edit]

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

Promotional article with "puffery" for citations. I can't see how notability has been established $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 12:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke, what citiation did you find puffery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 12:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references seem to be in trade magazines plugging stuff; one of the references is a video of a machine working! I have removed several that merely linked to company's own promotional website!

Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)

12:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is promotional about this article? Everything inside it is a fact... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know this magazines, so you assume it's a commercial. Is CNN also a commerical? Before you write things here, do some research. I don't know if you noticed, but this is a software for machines. So putting a link to a video that shows a machine is in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 12:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure promo-spam. I could not find any significant coverage by reliable sources to verify notability. Does not even come close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH as far as I can see. A couple of the products have received some coverage in industry magazines but it's mostly promotion-type coverage rather than journalistic analysis. Anyway, coverage of the products is irrelevant because the company doesn't inherit notability from its products and this article is about the company (but don't go creating pages for the products - I don't think they are notable either). You can put all of those "references" into an External Links section - they are not invalid, nor are they inaccurate. But they couldn't really be considered "coverage" of the company. This article, for example, would be considered coverage of the company... if it was the same SolidCAM. It's not - it's a different company with the same name. Find some significant coverage in reliable sorces and it will be a different story. Also, have a read of WP:BURDEN and you might realise how laughable telling someone else to "do some research" really is. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article for you just in case this was a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problem. It wasn't. The sources still only give "coverage" (if you can call it that) to the products, not the company itself. I removed most of the link-spam and left you with the ones that might actually constitute reliable sources, just in case you were able to build on them. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The CAM business is not popular in the consumer market as it is a factory business product, it's not a software you can pick from the shelf. However I was able to find a review from an independent website SolidCAM Xpress review --PeteRoy (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not a bad source but we do need "multiple sources" and we're not there yet with just that one. Stalwart111 (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SolidCAM is a software that in the CAM business for 27 years and is sold in a reseller network of more than 120 resellers over the world.sentineldk (talk)

Also I changed the article to focus on the product "SolidCAM" and not the article "SolidCAM". I currently have 7 reliable references and to my opinion it's enough. I visited other values and they have also as much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I myself benefited today from this article because I was searching for a CAM product that integrates in SolidWorks. This article is also written well in comparison to others that software articles that I saw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.14.180 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — 62.219.14.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stalwart111. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH: indeed while the products might be notable (I didn't assess them, as they are not the topic of the article), the company definitely isn't. In fact it is another, undistinguishable software developer with nothing to say about it (apart from corporate trivia, which is not an encyclopaedic kind of coverage). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the value to focus on the "Software" and not the "Company" — Preceding [[Wikipedia:SGabbassMo (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)ignatures|unsigned]] comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have, so WP:CORPDEPTH may not really be relevant now. That's fine, but you should have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (software). It's an essay, not a guideline, but gives a good indication of what the wider Wikipedia community would expect to see to consider a piece of software to be notable. In my view, it would still struggle to meet those criteria. The sources need to demonstrate the significance of the software, rather than providing just a run-down of what it does. Again, not a guideline like WP:GNG, but more of an indication of what would be needed to build a consensus. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see nothing "promotional" in any of the content. I gained the information I was looking for (nothing more, nothing less) when I went to Wiki and searched Solidcam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MachineHead50 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC) — MachineHead50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The content on this entry is not promotional in any way. CAM is a vitally important segment of the manufacturing market and is not paid much attention to in larger circles. I found this entry while searching for CAM online and was glad to find information I needed to know which is the point of entries such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manerjl (talk • contribs) 13:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC) — Manerjl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Others(smaller) CAM software have a value as well, and solidcam is actually quite a popular one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemessa (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC) — Mikemessa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The CAM market is constantly changing and information like this helps us decide what is currently available. When I saw it was up for deletion, I wondered which of their competitors was responsible. Is that possible in Wiki? I thought it was known for unbiased information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunwiki2000 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC) — Shaunwiki2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep In comparison to software of the same type this page exhibits adequate information. It describe the purpose of the software and provides references to further research of the topic.GabbassMo (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC) — GabbassMo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wow - please note, each of the above 5 comments are not only from single purpose accounts but are from single contribution accounts. Each "joined", made a single edit in this obscure AFD voting "Keep" and promptly disappeared. Needless to say I will be opening an SPI. I think we can effectively strike-through each of the above as contributions from sock-puppets. Stalwart111 (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sentineldk. Stalwart111 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If people know the product, why can't they make a contribution? I checked all of Wikipedia policies and right now I don't see any objective reason to block the value. Correct me if i'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People can make a contribution - I'm suggesting all of the above are the same person. Sock-puppetry will get you blocked and the quacking here is obvious. Stalwart111 (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SolidCAM is one of the leading developers in CAM-business, there should stay informations about it in the world's largest encyclopedia for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyDick (talk • contribs) 07:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-This looks another sockpuppet 1 edit user!

Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)

08:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like it is just for promotion. Also, I thought it was weird when I saw those 5 editors that had no edits. ~ihaveamac (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand - Why is this value up for deletion? I changed the value to be about the software. I have 7 references in the value to neutral websites. SolidCAM has 1,700,000 search results in Google. Is one of my references not neutral enough? Is it not enough references? I have visited the solidworks value, and it has the same amount of references. Currently, what's promotional about the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This IP user seems to have a connection/history with the subject too - see User talk:212.179.150.34. Is this Sentineldk's IP address, or one of them?

Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)

10:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely - both have been added to the SPI. Stalwart111 (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and check, no problem. But is this talk page about me or about the value? I think you guys are forgetting the target of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion designed to build a consensus which becomes difficult when one person dishonestly provides their opinion more than once using multiple usernames. It is considered a serious breach of community trust - the note at the top of your page each time you edit here says as much. It also makes the company you "represent" look bad - that its representatives and supporters had to be dishonest and break the rules in an attempt to have the company's article kept. If you want to make a good argument for keeping the article, demonstrate how it complies with policies. Aside from the breach of rules, none of the keep arguments above actually cite any policies - they are all basically WP:ILIKEIT arguments and so don't carry much weight at all. Stalwart111 (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the same company had an article nominated for deletion in 2007 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SolidCAM - which concluded no-consensus. But some of the SPAs (fairly obviously, now, socks) voted there, and happened to come back just to vote at this AFD. They will be added to the SPI. So it looks like every single one of the Keep votes above is actually from the same person / company. Incredible. Stalwart111 (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion was NOT to delete, that's the bottom line. Until you prove this "SPI" claim, please stop mentioning it. You guys are putting allot of energy into this debate, and I respect that. But why do you think the value should be deleted? I don't see any concrete proof that this value should be deleted. Correct me if i'm wrong. User: Sentineldk —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. The standard burden of proof means you have to verify the content you add before you add it and the subject must meet notability guidelines. It is up to you to verify that it does - something you have so far failed to do. There is no "value" if you haven't verified the content - it's just an advertisement for your company, now for your product. It doesn't come close to meeting guidelines and you know it (have known it for about 5 years I'd say and nothing has changed) - thus the sock-puppetry. Stalwart111 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I prove notability, if not references? Are you saying my references are not good enough? If yes, what is the problem with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, and others, have explained this above and elsewhere. You should have a look at WP:RS - few of the current "sources" would be considered reliable. Maybe the ones from MMS would be okay but for WP:N they are considered one source, so would not comply with the requirement for "multiple" sources. You need "significant coverage" in things like major newspapers, scholarly articles/papers, books, etc. A promotional write-up from a trade partner is neither reliable, nor independent. The specific criteria for software (mentioned above, though again not policy) also need to be considered given it likely doesn't pass any of those either. Stalwart111 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are not just one of the fastest growing companies but also a leader in technology. iMachining (a technology developed by SolidCAM) is a paradigm shift in the manufacturing world. This is certainly note worthy especially to the wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikay19 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On cue, another brand new single-contribution account. LOL. This is just getting silly. The article isn't even about the company now - it's about one product by the same name. So the suggestion someone "new" would come here to make an "old" argument is laughable. Stalwart111 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, are "single-contribution" accounts not allowed to post here? If they are allowed to post, why are you mocking them? The way you are acting regarding this has become very childish and personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they can but legitimate new users are unlikely to make a "random" AFD their first, let alone only, contribution to Wikipedia. It's usually a good sign they are actually someone else pretending to be a "new user" to skew a consensus in their direction - vote-stacking with sock-puppets. It's a tactic so common and so old that it is noted above every edit window at AFD as a warning to users old and new. Thinking the tactic is new and "clever" is the only part that could be considered mockery. It is even less clever when each shows up, says basically the same thing and then never comes back to answer questions or support their claims. It's all classic COI sock-puppetry that regular editors have seen over and over and over again. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only notable thing I could find is that there are ten times more press releases on Solidcam than, uh, "Keep" iVotes in this AfD. The oldest press release was from October 16, 1997. The topic does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "press releases"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not true. See http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/SolidCAM-Cements-Its-Long-Term-Relationship-with-Iscar-with-iMachining-TM-605024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a press release - it even says "Press release date" at the top. Stalwart111 (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is helping me improve the article - I added 5 more references to "neutral" sources that talk about the product. Currently I have in the article 12 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are much the same - the press releases Uzma was talking about. Some even say "press release" or "for immidiate release". Sorry, but they would certainly not be considered reliable sources. Stalwart111 (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what reference is not reliable and why? I understand the comment, but it's too general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 08:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it says "press release" at the top then it obviously came from the company so is not from an "independent source" which it needs to be to be considered reliable. Anything which is basically just re-hashing an announcement from the company couldn't be considered reliable. You need to read WP:RS. Link-spamming more press releases into the article doesn't help it meet WP:GNG. Show us articles in The Daily Mail or the Chicago Tribune or a well-respected industry publication or scholarly paper. You need to demonstrate that respected people outside the company have been prompted to write about the company or its products - not just passing mentions but significant coverage. Re-printing the company's press releases does not count. Stalwart111 (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refrences 1 and 4 are to Modern Machine Shop, which is the magazine and online website with the widest circulation to the metalworking industry (97,000 + Subscribers, 73000+ Monthly Visitors),References 6 and 7 are to CIMdata, the iIndependent global leader in PLM consulting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to you on the article's talk page, the MMS ones are probably the sources closest to being considered reliable, but this needs to be demonstrated and the associated WP:BIGNUMBER doesn't really help. Besides which, sources from the same source are considered one source for the purposes of WP:GNG and we still need multiple sources. CIM is a commercial consultancy - their newsletter "news" items would not have the same editorial standards or reliability as a newspaper or magazine. I wouldn't be relying on them for notability. Stalwart111 (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one from MMS.[2] It's by Alan Christman. Wait a minute! Alan Christman isn't a reporter for MMS. My version of the "news" article says Author Affiliation: Alan Christman, Chairman, CIMdata, Inc., 3909 Research Park Avenue, Ann Arbor, Ml 48108, E-mail: xxx@cimdata.com.[3] Appears to me that CIMdata was hired by the Solidcam company to consult/manage the Solidcam product lifecycle marketing, including writing stories and having them published in Modern Machine Shop. Essentially, the MMS article is another press release or at least not independent of the topic as required by WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go - that pretty much rules that one out too. Stalwart111 (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I shall remove these soft fluffy non-ref's one more time !

Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)

13:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it legal to go ahead and delete references? - The user "brookie" delete 10 references of mine, and did not even write why. This is a joke. This guy has something personal against the company. I am putting back the references, and I dare anyone to delete them without proving why they should be deleted.

See the comments in the page history for each item - specific comments were made for each. Please don't make threats - this is not how we do things. Please read the above comments before re-adding the questionable "references" - these are not reliable sources.

Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)

10:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate, you can't go ahead and delete stuff. If you think a reference is not reliable, let's discuss it in the talk page. I am sorry about the threat, but what you did is just not professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 10:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he is allowed (encouraged, in fact) to be bold and delete unreliable material. I would suggest it actually helps your cause to have the unreliable ones removed so you can spend some time finding some good ones. Stalwart111 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know he is allowed, everyone is allowed to do everything around here. But there is one talk page, and I think that his claims should be made here. He deleted one of my references to CIMdata, but did not prove that it's not a reliable source. He deleted one of my refrences to SolidWorks website, but it is only natural to put references in the article to SolidWorks website, which is the biggest CAD vendor in the world and has a value in Wikipedia. I can prove to you one by one why each reference is completely reliable and 100% bullet proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 10:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend you can't because they aren't. Press releases from the company are not reliable sources for verifying the notability of that company. Plain and simple. This whole thing really goes to show why WP:OWN exists and why COI editing is strongly discouraged. If the company was notable enough to warrant an article, an uninvolved editor would likely have been prompted by significant coverage to start one. The fact that the company has to create one for itself as a WP:PROMO, then encourage "friends" to support its retention rather than supplying reliable refs is usually a pretty good indication that something might not be notable. There are exceptions but I don't think this is one of them. Stalwart111 (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 of my references point to press releases, but I still think they are good ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect you to think they are "good" even if they aren't reliable - your company wrote them. That's the whole point of my previous comment. Stalwart111 (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then, I will add more newspapers articles. Expect them tomorrow.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for asking again, but why do you consider refrences from CIMdata to be not reliable? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the references again, and deleted 2 of them. Also I added one more reference to an article in Develop3D.com

I added 1 more reference, to an article in gfxspeak.com

Can we score through the identified meatpuppets and sockpuppets? This will make the voting clearer. $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 08:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20 Mule-Team Delete: What in the hell; why was this relisted? There are six Delete proponents, and with only one exception, every single Keep proponent is a SPA. Consensus was long since reached. The arguments of the Delete proponents is quite persuasive - these "sources" are long on blogs, self-promotions, and obscure websites, and very short on mainstream media - and this AfD should be closed at once. Ravenswing 09:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try to be more specific when you write things. We currently don't have even one source in the article that refers to a "blog" or anything else in this sort. If you believe i'm wrong, please prove what reference is not reliable. Also, from what I see, each keep vote is legit. You can say that if the person has less contributes then the vote weighs less, but you cannot completely disregard it. Correct me if I am wrong, and please write things that can be proved.

This is just getting silly - several people have explained the major issues with the "references" you added and you have continued to revert their deletion and add even more unreliable sources. It is not up to others to "prove" the subject is not notable - as the original author you are required to comply with the standard burden of proof, which means you have to verify notability and the content you add. Other editors who come here to AFD are ostensibly required to give an opinion as to whether or not you have met that burden. If the majority (WP:CONSENSUS) say you haven't, you need to convince them. That's the whole point of AFD. Demanding that people prove you wrong helps your cause not at all. The very obvious sock-puppetry (at your instigation or not) should be considered an embarassment to your company - you put no effort into making persuasive arguments and instead are trying to rely on the "votes" of obviously dodgy WP:SPAs while refusing to engage productively.

Wikipedia is not a democracy - the number of votes counts not at all (now we tell you!) - decisions are made on the merit of arguments, community consensus and compliance with policy. Seeing as though most of your arguments amount to "I like it" and you continue to refuse to provide references (despite the obvious consensus that the current ones aren't any good) your arguments are unlikely to be given much weight at all. As above - you have brought this on yourself. Stalwart111 (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I agree with you, my references were not reliable in the first place. But now I did a little cleaning and I think it's much better, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I strongly disagree. You added another press release (re-added it after someone else justifiably / helpfully removed it) and a link to an online magazine without any reference to a particular story / article. Besides which, that reference is footnoted for a particular module supported by the software, not the software itself. Unless you can demonstrate that it gives "significant coverage" to either the company or its software, it really isn't of much value for the purposes of WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since IP 212.179.150.34 is registered to Solidcam LTD, I'd flag any edit the anon made on the subject as a strong COI violation. Ravenswing 23:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:Sentineldk and IP: 212.179.150.34 are clearly the same person - they edit alternately above in the first person - sometimes logged in, sometimes not. The IP is registered to the company and the User has declared an interest on the article talk page. In addition, at least one other "friend" has admitted to being canvassed by Sentineldk to come here to "vote" in support of the company. Pretty embarrassing for the company, really, but this has already been pointed out. At this point we're basically just handing out WP:ROPE to anyone who would like some. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Doughty[edit]

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

Unsourced biography stub of dubious notability. -- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 15:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:V, etc. Qworty (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honorary membership of the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, described here and sourced in the article (despite the obviously untrue claim in the nomination that it is unsourced), would appear to meet the requirements of WP:PROF criterion 3. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe he passes WP:SCHOLAR due to his invention of a device which is cited in several anaesthesia textbooks.[4] He also appears to have been a notable teacher of other anaesthetists. I have expanded the article and added references. --MelanieN (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major figure in his field. Warden (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clfswm[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable window manager. Can't find independent third-party reliable sources. Nothing in Google Scholar or JSTOR; Google Books returns only prints of Wikipedia articles. Web searches turn up only wikis, blogs, and software download sites. Psychonaut (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure those criteria are relevant in the case of a window manager. CLFSWM offers a rare (if not new) paradigm in the realm of window managers, and is, IMO, the best at implementing it. The project is still active and growing. Once it reaches a more stable state, I'm convinced it will attract a great quantity of users, thus making the Wikipedia page all the more relevant. --132.204.242.100 (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — 132.204.242.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- We're not a crystal ball; subjects get articles here only if they already have lots of secondary sources. Can you point to any reviews or third-party documentation of clfswm in the mainstream tech press? That's what would be required to keep this article. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two French-language references were just added to the article, but I don't think either is a reliable source. One of them looks to be a post on a Slashdot-like website, and the other a news item from a Linux users' group. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep: though (as Psychonaut said above) both references I added are not as good as should be to keep the article (BTW, "LinuX Maine" doesn't seem to be a LUG), I would prefer to see this article included, as I see a technical merit behind this WM. I must admit though, that given the amount and quality of coverage I would !vote "delete" if a generic window manager was in question. P.S.: I would also note, that all the sources call this software "CLFSWM" (all-caps), and most name the meaning of acronym, so probably the article should be moved to CLFSWM or Common Lisp Fullscreen Window Manager (the latter is the name of the article on French Wikipedia). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references available that mention Clfswm or "Common Lisp Fullscreen" or "fullscreen window manager". Doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is as marginal as a computer topic could be. I only see two possbly reliable sources, and in French at that. I do not think that is enough for GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. I'll just deal with the article. Speedy delete as entirely promotional (G11) & no indication of importance (A7) Protected against re-creat for a good while, not indef because conceivably they might become notable . DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CertificationPoint[edit]

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

This web-based company has no reliable sources and a search revealed none. There is no assertion of notability and none appears to be present. I am also troubled at the history of this article. A speedy deletion template was removed multiple times by the article's creator -- when those edits were reversed, a SPA was created, User:Blgiles23, whose sole purpose was seemingly to remove a reference to a competing website and to decline the speedy deletions for reasons that cite policy but entirely mistakenly, in my opinion. I believe there is a strong possibility that Wikipedia's processes are being used in bad faith for WP:SPAM and I would welcome advice from more experienced users/admins as to the utility of a sockpuppet investigation. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Lucchese crime family. MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Santorelli[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was created by a blocked user see and Santorelli fails both WP:CRIME and WP:GNG. Vic49 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per previous AfD, notability is not temporary and nothing changed in these two months. The point that the author was blocked dos not affect the notability of the subject, and at any rate the major contributor of the article is User:Archangel, that is not blocked. Cavarrone (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Lucchese crime family. Not every petty gangster needs an article, per WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per previous AfD, see nothing that has made this article into a less notable article since.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The introduction line of Anthony Santorelli article is information that can be found in the Lucchese crime family article Capos section. The first paragrah of the Anthony Santorelli article is about the The Tanglewood Boys the same information can be found in the Lucchese crime family article. The remaining informantion in the Anthony Santorelli article can be merged. Byki (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Astrology is stupid, yes. But that doesn't mean all astrologer are non-notable, it only means they're wasting their time and/or preying on gullible people. One would need to make a strong, specific case against the detailed sources (e.g., The Mountain Astrologer is pretty in depth and on topic), to overcome the headcount, which isn't done here. A majority favouring keep - plausible sources, although possible funnybusiness with the headcount. Wily D 08:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Houlding[edit]

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BASIC; Lack of reliable and independent sources "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.[5]" Article also subject to Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has sufficient sources. While "Astrology" may be a "fringe" theory, it is a very popular one. Unless the article Astrology is deleted via AfD, then its notable practitioners are notable and not subject to WP:FRINGE. Yworo (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"notable practitioners are notable", that's completely circular. You have to show she is notable at the world at large, thats the point of the AfD. Astrology as a newspaper reading exercise is popular, as a belief system not so much.

Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And which one of the fringe sources do you think meeets WP:BASIC? IRWolfie- (talk)

Most of the sources on the article. Other editors may review them for themselves. I find you to be a bit overzealous at identifying sources as "fringe" as well as underperforming when searching for sources yourself. You are clearly "on a mission", and I'm not speaking to you in my responses, but to the other neutral editors who respond. That being the case, feel free not to reply to everything I say as if I am challenging you or something. Yworo (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Identify one source that helps the article meet WP:BASIC. 6 of the sources are primary (by Deborah Houlding herself), so it's empirically impossible for it to be "most of the sources". [5] is a one sentence mention. Pankaj, S., The World of Internet. Retrieved 2011-06-05., APH Publishing, 2009; p.83. ISBN 81-7648-459-8, ISBN 978-81-7648-459-6 is just a catalog. Parker, Julia; Derek Parker (2007). Astrology. Doring Kindersley Limited. pp. 296. ISBN 978-1-4053-2198-3. gives a passing mention. No significant coverage, not even in fringe sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie – your point "No significant coverage, not even in fringe sources." is now redundant. There is significant coverage including fringe sources as per various references provided below. Minerva20 (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. I've done extensive research into this person, as she was used as a source by one of our fringe promoters, and the only thing I found in reliable sources is that she wrote a few academic papers during her graduate studies. Not bad work, but far, far short of her qualifying as an academic.

As far as her astrology is concerned, she gets absolutely no mention whatsoever in reliable sources. All coverage of her is in fringe sources that can't pass WP:RS by a wide mile. As no reliable independent sources exist, attempting to gauge her position in the fringe community would be OR.

Absent substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources, and absent even the faintest hope that such sourcing will ever be found, there is no chance that this person will ever meet any of our notability requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All these points have been roundly refuted by subsequent posts. However, I would like to take issue with your argument that "attempting to gauge her position in the fringe community would be OR". This argument has been used in several of the biographies of astrologers that you have put up for deletion. It is based on an inappropriate interpretation of what constitutes a reliable source for the context and your refusal to admit references from subject-related publications. In a biography page such as this, fringe publications that are trusted within their field are reliable sources for showing the opinions of members of that field. The guidelines on sourcing are clear that proper sourcing always depends on context and common sense. I will be posting another reference from a typical reliable source below. Minerva20 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to the web, she seems to be a big-wheel in astrology and maybe it's not surprising that editors use her and her website as a source. If Astrology is a fringe subject, it is certainly not one where being an academic is required to be a notable astrologist. The content on the page is poor, but better than the other fringe biographies you have put up for deletion. This one doesn't match up with the web and nearly half the references are to her own articles and publications. The remaining secondary sources are good enough and AFAIK independent of her "promulgators and popularizers". Kooky2 (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of the secondary sources comes close to being reliable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the primary sourced links and added secondary sources including significant coverage on Houlding in an article from a woman's fashion magazine. It is one matter questioning astrological sources as reliable over controversial claims about astrology, but non-controversial coverage by what appears to be established organisations, long-standing and prominent magazines, well-known writers and figures and international groups in the field are easily verifiable and reliable sources. Kooky2 (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the fashion source. Which one is it? A prominent astrology magazine isn't prominent for the world at large. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the fashion magazine article, either. Anyway, that would be a poor source for a pseudoscience-related topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link was there but I have made it clearer. The links to overseas awards, the interviews, being a keynote speaker at international conferences and the fact that the book Temples of the Sky has been translated into Czech [6], Italian [7] and German (awaiting publication) provides evidence that she is notable on an international scale. Kooky2 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deborah Houlding may not be an academic, but she appears to be considered a significant source in academic titles including a reference from a best selling author Dr Robert Lomas. A search on Google scholar on "Deborah Houlding" produced 14 listings mostly from reliable independent sources - maybe some of these could be used to improve the sourcing. Minerva20 (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show one of these academic sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie – Please follow this link to see how Houlding's ideas are found worthy of discussion and evaluation by Classic's Professor Stephan Heilen, in Ptolemy in Perspective: Use and Criticism of his Work from Antiquity to the Nineteenth Century, edited by Alexander Jones (Springer, 2006, ISBN 978-90-481-2787-0).

The Google Book preview shows only some of Heilen's discussion of her work, but enough for you to see that her ideas are taken seriously enough to be examined by academics/ authors from outside the astrological community as well as within it. I also found these references easily and quickly on Google books:

Turning the Solomon Key, Robert Lomas, p.54 (Fair Winds, ISBN: 9781592332298).

"Deborah Houlding, another astrologer, and writer on the history of astrology, says this field of mundane, or judicial astrology was …"

The gospel and the zodiac: the secret truth about Jesus, Bill Darlison, p.138 (Duckworth Overlook, ISBN: 9781590200377)

"As Deborah Houlding informs us"

Moon-o-theism, Volume 2: Religion of a War and Moon God Prophet, p.15 (Yoel Natan, ISBN: 9781439297179)

"Deborah Houlding notes …":

To Dominus Vobisdu: Houlding does not need qualifications as an academic to gain notability as an astrologer. According to Heilen, Houlding's interest is not derived from an academic perspective but a practitioner's interest in understanding the origin of her practice. We need not assume that she is considered a reliable source within academia; the only onus is that her influence is significant enough for work to have been quoted by others, commented on, disparaged or discussed. Since this page concerns a person rather than an idea, the relevant policies are WP:BIO - the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Houlding qualifies under the criteria for 'Creative Professionals': "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" (see WP:AUTHOR criteria 1).

You can find sources that mention Houlding, but they are required to be reliable, and give significant detail about Houlding. As far as I can see neither of these are met. "The gospel and the zodiac: the secret truth about Jesus" is Christ myth theory meets astrology. I don't think "moon-o-theism" is reliable for anything beyond opinion, this is a BLP. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This point is simply not correct, IRWolfie. The first link is to Professor Stephan Heilan [8] - listed in the German Wikipedia as a classics scholar and published in a Springer Text. It's not unreasonable to state that this is an impeccable source and the publisher of the highest order. This appears to be a text book and I counted 12 pages that refer to Houlding - on one page he disagrees with her - which only happens if someone is an authority. Though I admire your fervour and work-rate, I don't know how you managed to miss that as it is our job to find sources and so far you and another editor, who writes that he has "extensive research into this person", don't seem to have done due diligence here.

Now I agree that Moon-o-theism and claims of the secret life of Jesus sound ludicrous, but we are discussing the notability of Bishop Ussher here not whether his belief that the world began in October 4004 BC on a Sunday is reliable or not. These are all independent published books and evidently reliable, we have to ask are they making up claims that Deborah Houlding is a writer of note? These are not random self-published blogs. Dr Robert Lomas has a PhD. in physics and is a university lecturer. He is a best-selling author - I have even read one of his books on Freemasonry. I think he was thought to be one of the characters that Dan Brown modelled Robert Langdon (protagonist of Da Vinci Code etc). Are you suggesting he is not a reliable source in referring to Houlding?

When I first saw this article, it seemed like a stub that could be deleted. However, editors have since uncovered considerably more reliable, independent, widespread, noteworthy material. This is an article badly in need of editing but frankly I don't think I am up to it. Kooky2 (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the Ptolemy source that can be used, it's merely some passing coverage. "on one page he disagrees with her - which only happens if someone is an authority", Eh? Houlding is an expert because someone disagrees with her? Sound logic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experts don't have to agree - in fact they often disagree. However, when a recognised expert in a field puts his disagreement in print in a text book, the subject of his criticism is an authority - unless you are saying that Professor Heilen is using Houlding as a 'straw-man' - either way Houlding is notable in this field. I trust you are no longer questioning this as a reliable, independent source. Now you are saying 12 pages referring to her work is "merely a passing reference". I leave that judgement to the closer. Kooky2 (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deborah Houlding is one of the leading astrologers today, known to the majority of practicing astrologer in the English language, and that is more than a few. Besides her book and many published articles, she is the administrator of http://www.skyscript.co.uk/, a large website that contains a wealth of articles by leading thinkers in astrology as well as lively forums on various aspects of astrology. These are undoubtedly among the biggest and most popular astrology forums in English. If you are looking for the mainstream in astrology, then this is where you can start. Keep this article. It needs some work right now but it will grow and become a valuable part of Wikipedia. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number of publications, in various languages have given significant coverage to her views and her work. The Mountain Astrologer ran a 10-page feature on her in 2006, describing her as “one of the foremost practitioners of horary astrology, well known for the magazine she published, and widely acclaimed for the book she authored.” It adds "Her workshops have been delivered in places as far apart as Hawaii and Tasmania, and her articles (which have graced the pages of most well known astrological journals) have been translated into many languages". She is also well known within the astrological community as the creator of the Skyscript website, which is independently described by the Mountain Astrologer as "one of the most active web sites dedicated to exploring the philosophy and practical application of astrological symbolism".

The Mountain Astrologer has a good reputation within its field. It is editorially controlled, independent and provides another reliable source that demonstrates why she has influenced her peers and successors. The article details are: An Interview with Deborah Houlding by Garry Phillipson, The Mountain Astrologer, vol 19, no.2, Issue 125 - Feb/Mar 2006, pp.47-56. (The Mountain Astrologer, Green Grass Valley, CA, ISSN 1079-1345). Minerva20 (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"its field" is pseudoscience, it's not a reliable academic field, so stop portraying it as such. It's not reliable for historical details and this is clear puffery. Show independent non-fringe sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is established by substantial coverage in reliable indpendent secondary sources, and the sourcing provided so far are anything but, amounting to scant and tangential mention at best. Claims that Houlding is notable within the astrological community are therefore OR, and not supported by reliable sources. Claims that there is a campaign to stifle fringe views are spurious, as WP has plenty of well-referenced articles on fringe topics, such as creationism and homeopathy, for example. These articles, however, are based on reliable independent sources written by real-world scholars, not on in-universe sourcing and promotional materials written by fringe proponents. Unfortunately, astrology has generated very little interest outside of the fringe community, and reliable sources are scarce as hen's teeth. Per WP:FRINGE, topics that are not mentioned outside of the fringe community should not be mentioned in WP articles. We have no basis to gauge the notability of fringe proponents without reliable independent secondary sources. As I said, that would be OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Threads presented since your vote show good coverage from inside the astrological community and outside of it - eminent academics and popular magazines. Are you suggesting that The Mountain Astrologer cited by Minerva20 is unreliable, or not independent, or not secondary? According to the WP page it is a reputable publication. Kooky2 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course The Mountain Astrologer is generally unreliable. "According to the WP page it is a reputable publication, don't you see a problem with that sentence? "Good coverage" by academics has not been shown. I suggest you check RSN on Houlding and The Mountain Astrologer. It is clear that neither are generally considered reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is this "topics that are not mentioned outside of the fringe community should not be mentioned in WP articles"? I can't find it in WP:FRINGE - I think you are muddling it with WP:ONEWAY "Fringe views, products or the organizations who promote them may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way". Obviously that doesn't apply here. Kooky2 (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Clearly a BLP about an astrologer is an aspect of astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deborah Houlding appeared in the BBC 'Everyman' programme: 'Twinkle, Twinkle, An Illustrated History of Astrology', (1997) as part of a documentary connected with astrology and religion. I have it a recording of it. It was broadcast on the BBC in May 1997 Minerva20 (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on a TV show doesn't make someone notable as you should be well aware by now. Concrete and significant sourcing is required, material that is suitable and reliable for being used directly in the article to make an article that is actually WP:NPOV. The attempts (in this AfD and elsewhere) to characterise Astrology as a legitimate field when it clearly isn't, is part of the problem. Much of the keep votes have been attempting to post volumes of tid bits and passing mentions, and unreliable fringe sourcing, that doesn't actually demonstrate notability but is really scrapping the barrel. Kepler was an astrologer, and he is notable. Why is that? It's because we have copious amounts of sources with a reputation for fact checking who have published about Kepler. These sources discuss Kepler in large detail. Compare that to the current case where we only have a few passing mentions in actual reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a published biography on Houlding in an academic journal that published the paper from one of the presentations she gave at the Warburg institute. The source details are:

The Winding Courses of the Stars: Essays in Ancient Astrology,* eds. Charles Burnett and Dorian Giesler Greenbaum, Culture and Cosmos, vol. 11, nos 1 and 2, 2007, p.310. ISSN: 1368-6534

It reads:

Deborah Houlding is the past editor of The Traditional Astrologer magazine and author The Houses:Temples of the Sky. Her articles feature regularly in astrological journals and she currently acts as the web mistress of the skyscript site (www.skyscript.co.uk). She has a particular interest in researching the origins and development of astrological technique and as a consulting astrologer specialises in horary astrology. She is the principal of the STA school of traditional horary astrology, which offers courses by correspondence and intensive residential workshop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerva20 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Minerva20, I used this more authoritative independent source in the article. Kooky2 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with the rules here?[edit]

The Wikipedia guidelines are byzantine almost beyond comprehension, but I don't understand how IRWolfie can change them to suit a special purpose (in this case apparently to remove the Deborah Houlding article). Suddenly, today, without discussion, WP:FRINGE theories (or subjects) covers people too.

IRWolfie's version now says: "A 'Fringe subject' is an article where a significant claim to notability revolves around the relation of the article to the fringe theory. This includes the organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory, and the fringe theory itself." This doesn't even make sense. How can an "subject" be a "article"? How can "claim to notability" be made on the basis of its fringe status? IRWolfie tries to spread the presumed contamination from the despised theory to all related "organizations, people, concepts or aspects of the fringe theory, and the fringe theory itself." I suppose this covers all conceivable bases, unless IRWolfie wants to add something else? Is Wikipedia just collapsing in a heap of babble rules? Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current change is a clarification of the existing text which was "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has ...". There is nothing new to what I have added beyond a clarification of scope. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned that IRWolfie has apparently attempted to change Wikipedia rules to patch up a flawed argument. I will certainly object to this attempted edit when I have an opportunity as I believe it will result in a range of issues. I anticipate that one issue will soon become evident here when two editors use this for what appears to be their particular interpretation of the rules and tendency to denigrate sources. I cannot imagine a situation in life be it a sport or a court case where when the evidence does not go their way, the proposers can change the rules to prop up a collapsing case. If any such proposed change does become permanent, it will affect many other biographies. However, in this instance it has been clearly shown that Houlding happens to have notability both inside and outside the field of astrology.

Also many thanks to those editors who helped with the editing. I think this biography is worth the investment in editing time. Kooky2 (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice I have quoted the old version throughout here. The change has been made to clarify existing guidelines. There is no new interpretation here. This entire section is a red herring. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose[edit]

To the closer, I would suggest looking at which accounts are WP:SPAs, and inactive accounts becoming active. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the closer, since I am fairly new (Aug 2011) to Wikipedia and my edits have been mainly confined to topics related to the broad field of astrology and history - one of my niche interests, I take it that IRWolfie's comments about SPAs are referring to me. The implication here is that I am pushing an agenda, which I take as ad hominem and I think I am entitled to defend myself. Up until now I have never been involved in this page and I hope one day I will have the time to edit a wider range of topics in Wikipedia. If anyone has a single purpose agenda, the closer should note that IRWolfie has made 125 edits of the astrology page in the last 5 months and Dominus Vobisdu 78 edits in the past year. All of these edits have shown a consistent pattern of anti-astrology POV pushing. His action in putting this and at least four other astrology pages up for deletion has to be interpreted in the light of this campaign to make it easier to 'patrol' what they call 'cruft' (see User_talk:IRWolfie) and to marginalise an ancient and still popular subject throughout the world from Wikipedia. Minerva20 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to improve wikiproject astrology. With any large scale clean up, the non-notable topics get put up for AfD. I have an anti "astrology POV" in terms of articles, because I am working for NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that you are working for NPOV, you must allow for the possibility that others also believe that they are NPOV even if they strongly disagree with your views. As such, we should all assume good faith and you should redact your advice to the closer that arguments presented here should be judged in any way by the editor's experience or editing history. The closer should be allowed to judge this page on the basis of the article: Deborah Houlding and the strength of the arguments presented and not on any emotional bias for or against what you refer to as a fringe theory or any ad hominem arguments. Minerva20 (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing bad faith about asking the closer to take into account Single Purpose Accounts. There is ((subst:spa)) as well for that reason, but I thought this was a less controversial way of doing it. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite neutral about the notability of the subject, pretty borderline. At any rate, I looked the contribution histories of the voters and I don't see any SPA account. Am I wrong? Cavarrone (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva20 is (31 edits, 1 to another topic talk page). I didn't want to turn this into a big drama, hence I asked the admin to look and make their own mind up. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But not a new editor, and has never edited this particular article. Calling her a "SPA" is a reach. Yworo (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose." It doesn't matter if they aren't new, their edits are limited to astrology articles. Anyway, it's not important to debate it, the closer can take it on board as she/he sees fit. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie, and Dominus Vobisdu, there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles on astrology, as well as more on its leaders like this one. You have a very long way to go if you are trying to remove astrology and related articles to the point where it becomes a "very narrow area or set of articles" to support your SPA accusations. Do you rationally think you can narrow it down to two or three articles and then you can try to make astrology go away entirely? And if it's not in Wikipedia, then it doesn't really exist? This is what your statements and activities seem to suggest. Astrology is a vast subject with an immense literature going back centuries that permeates deeply into many aspects of culture and philosophy and is very much alive today. An editor could spend a lifetime editing and adding to the WP astrology articles, covering its history, controversies, and ideas and not be SPA. I agree with removing some of the articles that are fringe within astrology, but by attacking articles on Deborah Houlding, John Addey, and Roy C. Firebrace you are starting at the very top, and these are not ideas but people. These are three of the most prominent astrologers of the past century. The thing these three people have in common is their ability to lead large astrological organizations and engage in lively, open discourse on astrology. You don't like that and would rather try to censor freedom of expression. I think this is where your purpose lies. Admit it. Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, what they have in common is they are unrated in wikiproject astrology, and have no significant coverage in reliable sources. This isn't a grand conspiracy. There are ~600 articles related to astrology, that's a narrow set of the ~4,000,000. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the guidelines need to be made clearer before we can make an informed judgment as to notability. Specifically, we need to answer the following question: Do magazines, journals and other publications published by a pseudoscientific community qualify as reliable sources? I can't find anything in the guidelines that answers this question definitively. The article has a number of sources. Many of them are independent of the subject. But are they reliable? Under WP:RS, they must have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. These sources may have such a reputation, but if they do that reputation is held among people who adhere to the pseudoscience and in the context of a practice deemed by the guidelines to be pseudoscience. Common sense tells me that we ought to be looking for sources independent of both the subject and the pseudoscience to establish notability; are there books and articles by people who don't practice astrology but who are writing, say, a history of astrology that reference the subject? This to me would provide a much more forceful claim to notability than a demonstration of his/her celebrity among adherents of the pseudoscience. --Batard0 (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important point to discuss, but I don't think this discussion is relevant for judging this particular biography. Whether a statement by a pseudoscientific organisation is reliable or not depends entirely on the claim. If the National Homeopathic Society states that someone presented a key note speech on a certain date, that can be taken as reliable, but if they claim that they can cure cancer then that is not reliable unless it can be verified by extensive, independent and reliable sources. Kooky2 (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to make these kinds of judgments while deciding how to write and source an article, but we're talking about notability here, not verifiability. We have to judge whether the person has received 1) significant coverage 2) from sources independent of the subject 3) that are reliable. With this article, I think 1 and 2 aren't an issue. But we must then judge the reliability of the sources in which the subject has been given significant coverage -- not the specific claims that the sources support. I guess what I'm saying is that the reliability of sources in the context of notability is different from the reliability of sources in the context of verifiability. Hence my comment. --Batard0 (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: from what I can see there is a sufficient range of references and notability appears established. Fireflo (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found one good source, Daily Star January 23, 2011, but that would only contribute one sentence to the Wikipedia article. Looking in the article itself,[9] the cited sources appear to be Wikipedia reliable sources. The editors of the Wikipedia article are not running to a bunch of goofy website and citing those. The sources appear to be print based and have volume numbers, issue numbers, ISBN numbers. Just because the sources are from astrology doesn't mean they cannot have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy such as through the publication of corrections. By its nature, astrology does not lend itself to facts. I don't think it is fair to say that because astrology sources report on astrology, which does not lend itself to facts, the sources themselves cannot have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It cost paper sources money when they print stories and they have to pick and choose between what stories to run through editorial decisions. They've published enough about Deborah Houlding so that the topic meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't accumulate to make significant coverage, sources are individually expected to meet it. Astrology sources are only reliable for the opinions of astrologers. Would you consider "The mountain astrologer" reliable for points about non-astrologers? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least ten independent, reliable sources from outside astrology now. Thanks for that link, Uzma Gamal. It appears that the Cox controversy over astrology was widely reported around the world. This kind of mocking criticism would help to balance the article. However, though the Daily Star is a major national newspaper, it is like most tabloids not a reliable source - less reliable than say The Mountain Astrologer. I will look into this more as I think Deborah Houlding's role should be reported.

IRWolfie, your hypothetical question is something of a red herring here and it would depend on the claim and context. I suggest you raise this question on the WP:FRINGE talk page. Kooky2 (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Kooky2)I think when you say "most tabloids not a reliable source," you are confusing a general understanding of what reliable is and what Wikipedia reliable source requires. A source does not have to be reliable based on an understanding of what some Wikipedia editors understand to be reliable. Rather, a source need only meet the criteria at Wikipedia reliable source. And whether the source meets that criteria is not based on subject opinions, e.g., its a goofy astrology source so it must be unreliable. A higher-quality source may replace a lower-quality source in an article, but both still can be Wikipedia reliable sources. Also, that replacement decision is a content improvement decision, not a deletion decision. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(IRWolfie) The topic needs to meet GNG, not the sources. Astrology sources are more likely to write about astrology topics than other sources, so it seems reasonable for Wikipedia to harvest source information from Astrology sources. If an Astrology source reports that Deborah Houlding was born 14 May 1962, that is not an opinion merely because the source is an Astrology source. Also, even though astrology is not factually true, it can be written about in an encyclopedic way that does not convey it as being factually true. The problem comes in that those who are into astrology believe that it is factually true and may end up writing a Wikipedia article with a factually true tone or in a way that links its credibility to disciplines with true credibility . The article now includes phrases such as -- "German classics Professor," "presentations at academic institutions," "ancient history scholars," "literary historians," "other disciplines"[10] -- which gives the impression that Deborah Houlding's astrology work sits just below E = mc² as far as importance to the World. To maintain the proper context, each of these needs to be removed from the article or limited to applying to astrology-only, as in: "German astrology classics Professor," "presentations at astrology academic institutions," "ancient astrology history scholars," "astrology literary historians," "other pseudoscience disciplines". -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Gama - I take your point and have reduced the academic tone and removed the terms. They arose in response to requests from the editors proposing deletion for lack of evidence of notability from reliable sources who are outside the field of astrology. Now these can be provided by the sources. Kooky2 (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC) <edited>[reply]

Also, these academics: historians and theologians are discussing Houlding's research into ancient history and there is no connection with the validity in the practice of astrology. Kooky2 (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to see IRWolfie's point about astrology reliable sources. Astrology reliable sources themselves write in terms of "presentations at academic institutions," "ancient history scholars," "literary historians," "other disciplines" and other scientific views in an effort to present astrology on an equal scientific level as chemistry, physics, etc. and to sell their publications to those interested in astrology, who do not want to read articles written with a pseudoscience view or article that present astrology on a scientific level that is less than equal to the scientific level of chemistry, physics, etc. In Wikipedia, this creates two problems:

1. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be a representative survey of the relevant literature. If astrology sources can be Wikipedia reliable sources, then a Wikipedia editor reasonable could think that Wikipedia astrology articles can be written in scientific terms because that would reflect a survey of the relevant astrology literature.
2. Wikipedian editors who follow/believe in astrology and science behind astrology are the ones most likely to contribute to Wikipedia astrology articles. They probably won't see anything wrong with writing Wikipedia astrology articles in scientific terms because that is their understanding of the topic.

Wikipedian editors in good standing use their genuine belief in the science behind astrology to write a Wikipedia article that faithfully reflects a survey of the relevant astrology literature. That pits them against the general acceptance of astrology as being pseudoscience, which leads to content conflicts in Wikipedia. I think Astrology reliable sources can be used in Wikipedia, see WP:PSCI, but the person using them has to (1) avoid bringing into Wikipedia the scientific view in those sources (2) while capturing what the sources say (3) in a way that does not insult those who believe in astrology and (4) yet conveys the topic in an encyclopedic manner. That's not an easy thing to do.

I created Template:Cleanup-astrology as a first step to address the above issue. I think it is a better start than an outright ban on astrology reliable sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your suggestions those terms have been deleted and the bare facts reported. Editing this kind of biography is not easy when some editors believe that all information from all fringe sources is not reliable and that most reliable sources verifying anyone associated with fringe beliefs are not acceptable. Kooky2 (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bare facts? You are adding original research and you are synthesising sources to arrive at original conclusions not present in the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The extent to which you are pushing your anti-astrology agenda is getting ridiculous. In this brief biography there are no less than 26 references which qualify every point made in the text. If you think there is OR, then the onus is on you to explain your concern properly on the talk page; not here - this is a deletion discussion. Use that talk page to engage with others editors. I see nothing on the page that is not reliably reporting what the independent sources say. Explain your editorial concerns and engage in the process of making the page as good as it can be. Don't just keep tagging the article, as you have been doing, with any tag you can find to try to make the entry appear to lack credibility whilst the deletion discussion you have proposed is being discussed. You proposed this - now stand back and let other editors evaluate, discuss and come to consensus Minerva20 (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show the reference which supports "her research into the history of astrology has attracted notice and critical interest outside the field of astrology as well as within" and which does not engage in original analysis of sources or synthesis. Quote the specific text. I find it funny that you don't want people to add tags, but you reverted efforts by someone else to improve the article. I'm tagging the article to bring attention to the severe issues which have been introduced to the article over the course of this AfD (examples of which I have stated on the talk page). The article has been stuffed with puffery to make the topic appear notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why Astrology sources are only reliable for the opinion of astrologers, they misrepresent the standing of astrologers in the world at large. They further aren't reliable for basic statements of fact; The mountain astrologer website says that according to greek myth "Ophiuchus" holds a serpent. The serpenth "represents the Kundalini and the double helix of the DNA". The double helix of DNA wasn't discovered until the 50s. They aren't reliable for what they say about non-astrologers, they aren't reliable for what they say about basic facts. They have no reputation for fact checking. How can they be reliable for describing astrologers when they exaggerate their status and make mistakes with basic facts. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding the sourcing requirments and mistaking summary for synth. Every point in the (now removed?) lede content was qualified by a biography of Houlding published by an impeccably reliable source - a peer reviewed academic journal edited by academics who are known to be experts in the exploration of this subject. I gave the full published biography earlier so you could see this. This is one of several references which show that her work has been noticed, and critically received, inside the astrological community and those exploring the subject from an outside perspective. It is therefore approriate summary, and not OR. I suggest you read this link to see that summary is a welcomed editorial process. As you will see I have called for this discussion to be closed due to your deliberate attempts at votestacking and policy misapplication, and your obsessive attempts to discredit the article and cast aspertions on those who have voted to keep it (particularly myself). Content debates do not belong oin this page but issues about the reliability of references which demonstrate notability do. The references that have been removed should therefore remain in place until this discussion is closed. I have made my arguments clear enough without needing to replicate them incessantly just because you keep persisting in yours Minerva20 (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask you to quote the specific line in the sources which specifically supports "her research into the history of astrology has attracted notice and critical interest outside the field of astrology as well as within". Try WP:ANI or Arbitration enforcement if you think I'm doing something improper in this AfD for "anti-astrology POV pushing". Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The mere fact that Houlding is mainly notable (but not exclusively) due to her association to a fringe theory should not diminish her notability. The Astrological Association is a major player in the astrological world and therefore any award by that organisation must have some credidibility. Any key player in any field, regardless of the acceptability or credibility of that field, is notable. Her notability is further demonstrated when she was featured, as editor of the Traditional Astrologer Magazine, in the BBC 'Everyman' program: 'Twinkle, Twinkle, An Illustrated History of Astrology'. This was broadcast on the BBC on 25 May 1997 and has been repeated since on other networks, such as ABC TV in Australia. The synopsis of the program is "Documentary tracing the history of astrology, discussing the relationship between astrology and religion."

Terry Macro (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being on a TV show doesn't add to notability. The coverage of Houlding as the focus needs to be significant, and it has to be usable in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, she is not an academic, and therefore is not notable as an academic, and I do not see how she is notable according to WP:GNG since she is only known in a narrow circle, as demonstrated in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ymblanter, does this mean that anyone who is notable must be an academic? IRWolfie, being on TV does not automatically make someone notable, but it certainly supports the argument of notability. Terry Macro (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  No, I never said this, I just responded to the claims that she is notable as an academic because she published a number of works in an academic journals which had significant impact etc. This is false - the journals are clearly not academic ones. She can indeed be notable according to WP:GNG, but currently I fail to see notability, as I explained in my comment.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biased canvassing by the proposer[edit]

This deletion discussion should be stopped due to the biased canvassing of the proposer. Whilst it is acceptable to place notices in appropriate boards, any notice should be be polite and neutrally worded (WP:CAN). It is innapropriate for them to introduce negative, biased opinion in a discussion board which attracts many editors who are hostile to the subject interests of the person featured on the page. Subsequent to his canvassing post, a member of that board has removed a lot of the reliably referenced material without good reason or discussion, (I have reverted once but will not engage in edit-warring); and a new vote has been added to support his deletion proposal, from an editor who has clearly not read the points already made above. This is vote-stacking, in a discussion which quite clearly did not find consensus and ought to have been closed as a keep some days ago. And this is on top of his earlier attempts to force this proposal through; such as changing the wording of applicable policies without discussion or consensus Minerva20 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue material was added about a person related to a fringe theory. I notified people at the Fringe theories noticeboard about this undue and puffery material. I did not mention this AfD. What is your issue? Vote stacking? About 4 astrologers have appeared on this page to vote and you accuse me of vote stacking? Please. Material was removed because it wasn't reliably sourced and was just added during the AfD. If you had more than 11 mainspace edits, perhaps you would have a greater understanding about the issues with RS, OR, FRINGE and NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I read the previous discussion, and I happen to have 1000 times more contributions to English Wikipedia than you had prior to this discussion. I gave my opinion based on Wikipedia policies. I am not going to discuss the policies with single-purpose accounts.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, we need to focus on content. It is good to see other editors participate more in editing the article. I am concerned that what I consider independent, reliable sources that have been raised here by various editors are being deleted without discussion. I think they should be left for the closer to decide. This biography should be given a fair chance of an impartial decision even if some editors feel evidently quite passionately about it. Kooky2 (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closer doesn't decide what actually goes into an article, the closer reflects the consensus on this page, (s)he may look at the article to see what state it is in (which I suggest she/he do, specifically looking at the sources restored and the nature of those sources and what they are being used to cite, and to wonder why three). Sources which only give passing mentions don't contribute to notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits, without discussion in the last few hours have cut out much content, with their supporting independent, reliable sources that has been discussed over the last ten days. As a result of this, I agree that the style now needs improvement. However, judgement of the the sources should be left to the closer. Kooky2 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not participated in many AfDs; we judge the reliability, the closer then weighs up our arguments with respect to policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Celes Ricolne[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOV for WP:BLP. Questionable sources. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a fan of cosplay. I like Alodia Gosiengfiao and Myrtle Sarrosa (I'm not sure if Myrtle is notable enough for an article yet, but that's another story). However, cosplay is not an automatic ticket to notability. They still need to received regular coverage the normal way. And with cosplay being a niche hobby in the Philippines, this is pretty difficult. Might as well Tiro Finale this one. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can get from this article is that this person does cosplay and doesn't reveal much information. Borderline A7 if you ask me. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 21:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Which is what usually happens when two users dominate an entire debate with circular arguments. Suggest discussing possible merger further at relevant talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tune In, Tokyo...[edit]

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

Non-notable release, fails WP:N and WP:NALBUMS due to lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Was previously redirected from the alternate title Tune In Tokyo in 2010. The only sources cited in the current version are nothing more than tracklists (one of them, Discogs.com is a wiki and therefore not reliable). I've searched the usual places one would expect to find coverage, like Allmusic, but all I can find are tracklistings; no critical commentary or other significant coverage. Google News turns up nothing, regular web search just turns up track listings, fansites, and lyrics sites IllaZilla (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepIt doesnt matter if we previously had a page so has is it not notable because i added it? because everything i add is apparently non notable. This is just as notable as live tracks or BBBPP or any other green day album. The article says that a notable is one by a big name artist and thats what green day is. It has just as much info on them and Discogs isnt the only page with a tracklisting there are a few with . And if its not notable try helping the page instead of blanking it without discussion. This page seems to have more info than the other live tracks minus the new ones and you still think their more notable than this? thats makes you a hypocrite only saying what i add isnt notable enough so dont try to delete just because i added it, it has plenty of sources BlackDragon 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that it's notable does not make it so. Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant coverage is more than just proof that a thing exists. We have specific notability criteria for albums that explicitly state:
- An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.
If all the sources you can find can offer no more than a track listing, that's not enough to justify a stand-alone article. I've already explained what's wrong with the sources: They do not give significant coverage, and are not all reliable. But then, I have already linked these criteria to you several times and you don't appear to fully understand or care about them, so I don't expect that to change now. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once Again Strong Keep this page is sourced by reliable sourcese (VH1, ArtistDirect) which name the date, label, recording time, track and members. And the production was from the booklet inside the Album so Since that is from GD its reliable. And again I bring to your attention that Live Tracks has no sources whatsoever and this does and you seem to think it is reliable enough. And im not saying that that page should be deleted either but this one shouldnt and if you think that these arent reliable try to find some? its not that hard but this page is more relaible and sourced that the other early live albums by Green Day is it not??? so thats why it should be kept and not deleted becuase you think it should be. BlackDragon 17:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also again like to bring your attention to BBBPP and Foot In Mouth which you say are more notable than thise page even though they have no refs??? care to say why this page is any less notable than those pages it not you can see that this page should stay because it is notable and has reliable sources BlackDragon 17:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do not get to !vote twice. You clearly still have not read WP:NALBUMS, even though I posted the relevant text from it above, or at least you do not seem to understand it or care. You would also do well to read WP:ATA, in particular WP:OTHERSTUFF. The existence, non-existence, or state of quality of other articles s irrelevant to the article under discussion here. As I mentioned in the nomination, the sources you found do not demonstrate significant coverage as required by the notability criteria. I made a good-faith attempt to find significant coverage in the usual places (I've worked on hundreds of album articles; I know where to look) and did not find any. With the sources that are currently available, this article will never be more than an infobox and tracklist. That is why it was redirected in 2010, and that's why it should be deleted now. A lack of significant source coverage is not something you can fix, no matter how good your intentions or how much you love Green Day. If no significant source coverage exists for those other releases, they can be redirected or taken to AfD as well. I'm not threatening to do so, but I am saying they all fall under the same notability criteria. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK but what im saying is that you nominated this one which includes some sources before you nominated the others which include none so if they stay this is double the notability of those and should stay. Why dont you try and help me expand it. And are VH1 and ArtistDirect and the booklet inside not reliable because those are the three main sources???? BlackDragon 19:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An editor nominating one article for deletion is under no obligation to search for and nominate related articles of a similar level of notability (though they often do). Inconsistent enforcement of the deletion policy is a problem which is not the responsibility of any single editor. We are discussing this article (Tune In, Tokyo...), not any other. Please address the concerns raised in the nomination (lack of significant coverage of this album in reliable secondary sources) or do not bother to reply further.

As I noted in the nomination and in my prior reply, I made a good-faith effort to find any significant coverage of this release in reliable sources (reviews, news reports, etc.). I found none, therefore I cannot expand the article any further. I have done my diligence; If you wish to save the article, it is now your responsibility to demonstrate that Tune In, Tokyo has received 'significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I once again point you to the general notability criteria, which state:
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

and
We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.

And for the umpteenth time, I direct you to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings, which says:
That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.

All the sources you and I can find give us nothing more than a track listing and release details. Regardless of how reliable the sources may be, this is not significant coverage. Because of this, the article cannot be expanded beyond the most basic details, (infobox, tracklist, credits). Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings was written precisely to address this type of situation. Unless you can find some sources that give significant coverage (reviews, news reports, etc.), the topic does not pass the notability threshold. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient reliable third-party sourcing other than simple track listings to satisfy the notability criteria at WP:NALBUMS. --DAJF (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
we should keep it because the sources give us When the individual songs were recorded, the track listing and label, producer, release date and the members and production crew how is this not enough stuff, and being as im the only one who has contributed to the page I was expecting others to help make it a little neater and better so why dont you guys help contribute. But like I said the Other live albums have been here for nearly 8 years and have not been deleted. But since the sources are reliable enough its a keep. heres a link to the back cover it list record, track, recording time and others so check it out you guys http://greendaycollection.com/wa_535_p/pa_2htkrc4kwdnfdfh/big_0418.jpg?1lb08ghojqhtj BlackDragon 00:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was nominated for deletion I have added quite a bit to it and changed it up a lot and have also added a few more sources. It looks more like an article and is more notable now so I really think it should be kept now BlackDragon 02:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? This shows the differences between the time of nomination and now. All you did was add some "notes" on the recording dates and some interwiki links (I don't even think you know what those are). The only "source" you added is a photo of the back cover. You have still entirely failed to address the concerns of the nomination, because you have still failed to demonstrate any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it up to make it more clean and easier to understand including changing the recording section and changing the top and some writing. I have also added the instruments that the 2 additional musicians played. I have doubled the categories in it and yes I know what their are Ive been on wikipedia for I believe 2 and a half years. So i know that there are different wiki such as simple, spanish and such others. I have also removed the one you said was a wiki and replaced it with the cover which includes the same info. Im pretty sure the cover is reliable to say what info is on it.

So what am I supposed to add that I havent, give me an example BlackDragon 04:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sigh...This is starting to feel like talking to a brick wall. Rather than repeat myself for the umpteenth time, I'll just give you a hint: It begins "significant coverage..." --IllaZilla (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tune Out, Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there isn't any reliable coverage for this EP. However, it's probably not a good idea to totally delete it. Perhaps a merge to Green Day discography would be more appropriate. But basically, a lack of sources means that this article should probably just, well, tune out. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you guys really expect that this album is going to have reviews from American based things. It was released only in Japan so it wasnt released here so it cant have reviews from american places since it wasnt released here. And by the way the 3 sources we have are very reliable. And the page is fairly long as well and im pretty sure this is most of the coverage for it unless some japan thing rated or reviewed it which isnt likely so this page is significant enough to keep. And arent there other stub articles that are kept. This is maybe 2 or 3 times the length of a stub. If you insist on deleting this and the others because the article is to small may I suggest making a Live EPs by Green Day page of some sort and list the 4 EPs there so that the page is longer and this is completely wasted. What do you think BlackDragon 22:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, please refer to WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. It does not matter if the sources are reliable if all they give is a tracklisting. That is not significant coverage. You can keep adding window dressing to it all you want but it's still a stub and can never be any more than that if significant secondary source coverage does not exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is the English Wikipedia, sources can be in any language. Even if there is a lack of English sources, the article can still be kept if there are sources in Japanese. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of those as well. I know it's Green Day, but notability isn't inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are reliable and they give more than a tracklist and being as this page was nominated as soon as I made it, it never got the chance to even be a start class which are aloud to be short tell things are found so I find it unfair to delete so soon or at all BlackDragon 02:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Links please. And even so, are they significant coverage? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"they give more than a tracklist"...no, they don't. Here are all 3 sources currently cited in the article: [11] [12] [13]. All they consist of is the cover art, track list, and credits. Black60dragon clearly does not understand the meaning of "significant coverage", despite my many attempts to explain it to him. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to help with Japanese sources, it seems the album was released in Japan also under the title "Bakuhatsu raiv 3!" (爆発ライヴ3!). The Oricon page for that says that it charted for 5 weeks in Japan reaching as high as #29 on the album chart. WP:NALBUMS does not state that charting is sufficient to prove notability, but this is one piece of evidence. I did a brief search in Japanese for that album title, and found plenty of pages, but mostly non-significant coverage. Some may have better luck:Michitaro (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I went ahead and added the charting to the page and the name but since the AfD this page has really turned around and has been greatly improved and now that people are taking my ideas to look for Japanese and not English sources we are slowly finding better coverage of this article. So it definitely shouldnt be deleted and the page will slowly just get better and have more coverage. BlackDragon 18:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying things like "since the AfD this page has really turned around and has been greatly improved" but that is gross exaggeration. Since the AfD was started the only significant change has been the addition of the oricon chart position, which in itself is not enough to pass NALBUMS (since the chart position can just as easily be mentioned in Green Day discography). You still have not found even one source that gives any kind of significant coverage of this release (ie. that actually says something about it, not just that it exists or what was on it), nor have I seen anything that would make me expect that such coverage exists. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your very ignorant. The page has had a lot of work done to it. Here Ill list them for you.
I made the introduction clearer and easier to read and added something

Added the instruments used by the additional musicians

Added charts for the album

Re did the section and added notes on the record dates (which last time is the only significant thing you said I added)

found 2 more sources that state different things

added the Japanese name
you say this isnt a lot of work so far. Man its progress, Were working on making it bigger so why do you do some hard research under the japanese name as well and try and find something so stop being stubborn and not changing you oppinion. The page is bigger and has a lot more info and is better to understand than when it was created 3 minutes before you deleted it. BlackDragon 22:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you're very full of yourself. Like I said earlier, you can keep putting window dressing on it but it's can never get beyond start-class if significant secondary source coverage does not exist. The introduction is 2 sentences. The credits and recording dates are just data from the album cover, something you'd expect to see even in a stub article. The chart position is just a single data point, one that could (and should) be noted in the discography article and doesn't require a separate article to explain. I do not see "2 more sources that state different things"...the only source that gives anything more than a track listing and credits is the japanese one, and all that gives in addition is a chart position. If you strip away all the stub-class components (infobox, track list, credits, chart table) you'd have a 2-sentence article. It's very clear that you have no idea what "significant coverage" means: This is significant coverage. So is this. Or this and this. This and this are not. I would like to know, in your own words, what you think "significant coverage" means. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whats the point in deleting this. this is more than a stub. Isnt wikipedia where people go to find info on stuff. If this is deleted the only thing they can find will be that it exist. This way people can find info on this here without having to search for it. And does it really matter if its shorter than american idiot. its longer than plenty other albums. Im still adding to it, Im going through the sources and will continue to do so later. Plus I dont think that the people looking to find info on this would care if its short or any one really, so theres really no use to do so. BlackDragon 16:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your opposition to deletion quite clear. Please allow others to have their say. Repeating the same things over and over will not save the article. The mere fact that a thing exists does not mean it warrants a stand-alone encyclopedia article (WP:N). You have not added anything of substance to the article, nor can you since it has not received any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is no way for the article to advance beyond Start class without some sort of significant secondary source coverage, and there is no evidence that any such coverage exists. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Despite Black60dragon's rudeness and the lack of sources, this may be indeed notable for being a charting release by a major band. Would, however, need a lot of cleaning up if it were to stay. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 22:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charting is, in and of itself, not enough to demonstrate notability (per WP:NALBUMS). This was only released in Japan & only charted in Japan. Chart positions are already listed alongside releases at Green Day discography, so if that's all there is to say about its reception then it doesn't justify a stand-alone article. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I seem rude its because I dont want the page I created and only I worked on, to be deleted. And you say that I "made your opposition to deletion quite clear" then what are you doing. you pretty much made "your supportion to deletion quite clear" Please allow others to have their say. Repeating the same things over and over will not hurt the article.. Ive been doing quite a bit but im the only one who has. If everyone else helped them it would be better. im only 1 person and can only do so much and word it how I would. BlackDragon 00:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I am in a position to address points made and to rebut arguments (like yours) that do not address the reasons for which the article was nominated. You keep acting like you've made tons of improvements to the article that should void it from deletion, but as I've mentioned these "improvements" are just window dressing; they mean nothing if they do not entail the addition of references evidencing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. You also keep saying things like "why don't you help me expand it?", "the page will slowly just get better and have more coverage", and "if everyone else helped them it would be better", but those are fallacious argument: It cannot have more coverage, nor can anyone do anything to make it better, if significant secondary source coverage does not exist. You cannot conjure up significant secondary source coverage from thin air: Either it exists now or it doesn't. No one has yet been able to find any or offered convincing evidence that any exists. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You want to walk about rude ^^^. You keep saying like "It cannot have more coverage" & "noone can anyone do anything to make it better" how would you know that no coverage exist, you said that before we found the chart. Did you search every website, no you havent you have been to busy deleting every Live EP from Green Day. Try looking for once BlackDragon 01:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)'[reply]
As I said in the nomination, I looked. I made a good-faith effort, checking all the usual places one would expect to find coverage of a release by one of the most popular rock bands of the past 20 years, and came up with nothing more than track listings. That 1 editor found 1 website that gave 1 chart position (which is already covered at Green Day discography) does not convince me that a wealth of significant secondary source coverage lies somewhere out there in the ether. Plenty of good-faith effort has been made to find significant coverage of this EP in reliable secondary sources: no significant coverage has been found. As the only one clamoring to keep this article, the the onus is now on you to prove that such coverage exists, as you keep insisting it must. It is not on anyone else to prove that it doesn't exist, since negative proof is a logical fallacy. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately I found no evidence in a search that it meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Track listings and such do not qualify as reliable secondary sources under these guidelines, and a chart position in Japan does not enhance notability since charting is not mentioned in the relevant notability guideline. I allow the possibility that secondary reliable sources could be found in Japanese, but it seems others have looked and found none. --Batard0 (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think the article could develop. It has problems but I think there is a potential to fix these. There is some secondary source material and perhaps more to be found. So I'm inclined to give this one a bit more time in the hope it can improve and establish a stonger case for notability. Fireflo (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mouin Rabbani[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)

Per WP:BASIC, a person is only notable "if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This has not been demonstrated, nor the fact that he is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" per WP:AUTHOR. 7 of the refs are simply articles that this journalist has written and have nothing to do with the subject themselves. The trivial coverage in the author bios of the Nation and Al Shabaka is not secondary and does not sufficiently establish notability. Ankh.Morpork 20:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Totally ridiculous discussion.

Sample of 10 Authors citing Mouin Rabbani out of over 1,000 hits for "Mouin Rabbani" in google books search[14]

Massad, Joseph (2006). The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians. 201: Routledge. ISBN 0415770092.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location (link)
Pearlman, Wendy (2011). Violence, Nonviolence, and the Palestinian National Movement. Cambridge University Press. pp. 126, 254, 260, 268. ISBN 110700702X.
Honig-Parnass, Tikva (2007). Between the Lines: Israel, the Palestinians, and the U.S. War on Terror. Haymarket Books. p. 561. ISBN 1931859442.
Byman, Daniel (2011). A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism. OUP USA. pp. 387, 394, 396, 400, 445. ISBN 0195391829.
Caridi, Paola (2012). Hamas: From Resistance to Government. Seven Stories Press. p. 132. ISBN 9781609800833.
Beitler, Ruth Margolies (2004). The Path to Mass Rebellion: An Analysis of Two Intifadas. Lexington Books. pp. 141, 178. ISBN 0739107097.
Radhakrishnan, R. Said Dictionary. John Wiley & Sons. p. 163. ISBN 9781118253519.
McMahon, Sean (2010). The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations: Persistent Analytics and Practices (Middle East Studies: History, Politics and Law). Routledge. pp. 167, 211, 213. ISBN 0415995485.
Saghi, Linda (2005). Beliefs &Policymaking in the Middle East. Xlibris Corporation. pp. 113, 187. ISBN 1413498809.
Finkelstein, Norman (2003). Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Verso Books. pp. 202, 204. ISBN 1859844421.

Sample of 10 internationally recognized news media quoting Mouin Rabbani or citing his analysis:-

Sample of 10 publications in which Rabbani's writing has appeared

Third World Quarterly^[1]
Journal of Palestine Studies^[1]
The Nation^[2]
Foreign Policy,^[3]
London Review of Books^[4]^[5]
The Hill.^[6]
The Daily Star (Lebanon) [26]
Counterpunch [27]
Middle East Report Articles written by Mouin Rabbani (as contributing editor)
Jadaliyya Articles written by Mouin Rabbani (as co-editor)

Google scholar returns 403 hits for "Mouin Rabbani" [28] which from a brief look appear to be a mixture of Rabbani's own scholarly research and academics citing Rabbani's work.

Some examples of News Media that have interviewed or conducted a debate involving Mouin Rabbani:-

Democracy Now [29]
Al Jazeera [30], [31]
RT [32] Dlv999 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as his specialism is the the Arab-Israeli conflict I had a quick look at Israeli RS. He has been cited by the mainstream English language Israeli papers:

Haaretz [33]
The Jerusalem Post [34],
The Times of Israel [35]
Ynet [36]
And even partisan, fringe Israeli sources like Arutz Sheva [37] Dlv999 (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ ^a ^b "IPS Fellow: Mouin Rabbani". Institute for Palestine Studies. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
^ "Author Bios: Mouin Rabbani". The Nation. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
^ Rabbani, Mouin (10 October 2012). "Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
^ Rabbani, Mouin. "Abbas's Next Move". London Review of Books. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
^ Khalidi, Rashid (30 September 2011). "The Palestinians' Next Move". The National Interest. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
^ Rabbani, Mouin. "Palestine at the UN: An alternative strategy". The Hill. Retrieved 10 October 2012.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This article (and the additional information provided above) satisfies WP:NOTE. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep– Very well-known and widely cited journalist. Zero^talk 23:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The source information may be better presented in a Writings of Mouin Rabbani aricle rather than in Mouin Rabbani, which is a biography article about Rabbani's life. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article. It fulfills the requirements of WP:BLP at the WP:STUB level. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:STUB is capable of expansion. The Mouin Rabbani topic is not capable of being expanded beyond being too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of an account of Rabbani's life. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles on the Wikipedia begin at the stub level and grow over time to Start, B, etc. This is usually because as more information becomes available on a subject, it is added to the article and it grows. There isn't any reason why the article isn't capable of growing over time-hard copy information that is not easily available on the web can be added for example and over time more digital information can be added. It thus qualifies as a stub or a starter article.-Classicfilms (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has not received significant coverage in Wikipedia reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There's no reason to believe that there are off-line Wikipedia reliable sources for the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read through, for instance, all of the over 1,000 google book hits for this topic to confirm this? Also please see WP:AUTHOR : "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards.....1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." It has been shown that the writer is widely cited by his peers, both in the media and in scholarly publications on his area of expertise. He meets notability as a writer on the basis of his work. Dlv999 (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources to show a notable expert in his field. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Recreated directed article. Still lacking in notability. SarahStierch (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Ahern[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Current references are all from the subject's own site. I Couldn't find any significant reliable secondary coverage to pass WP:GNG. This article was deleted in a previous discussion. heather walls (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dioxandrolon[edit]

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

The majority of the content of this article is dubious and/or unverifiable. There are no references to a chemical compound with this name in any chemical database that I have checked (PubChem, Chemical Abstracts, Reaxys, ChemSpider, etc. using the search terms dioxandrolon, "Danavar ", or the possible misspelling "dioxandrolone"). Web searches only turn up references to it being some kind of black market steroid in bodybuilding forums related to steroid use - nothing that would be remotely considered a reliable source. The entire content of the article is unreferenced, contains dubious or exaggerated claims, and has unencyclopedic content/tone. The subject of the article therefore fails WP:N (which applies to chemical compounds) and also WP:V and consequently should be deleted. ChemNerd (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ω Awaiting admin closure, but as an editor with experience creating Pharmacology articles with Links to PubChem, PubMed, ChemSpider and the like, there is simply no way that anything notable in the world of chemistry does not have an entry on one of these premier information sources. I Agree with User:ChemNerd entirely. The Illusive Man^(Contact) 19:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article is verified; it all appears to be WP:Original research. Aside from ChemNerd's searching of the chemical literature, which is persuasive, I checked Google News for possibly popular notability, but found absolutely nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on non-Google search engines as well, nor on PubMed, nor on clinicaltrials.gov. I agree that this is a black market steroid with neither chemical structure nor anything else reliable on the web. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, delete, delete! Bondegezou (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanad Rashed[edit]

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

Non notable biography of an illusionist - poorly sourced (several links are to his own site, now down, others are to commercial promotion) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK Qworty (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a badly written article which asserts that writing horror books and being fron Kuwait is in and of itself notable. It isn't. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 22:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article asserts that Rashed is the "first Kuwaiti writer to explore the Horror/Science Fiction genre." The founding-father of Kuwati science fiction is no small thing and indeed notable. The problem is it's such a huge claim, and the author is so young, I wonder if it's established fact or an off the cuff opinion. The source is solid, AlWati, a daily paper in the Middle East. The problem is I can't translate a PDF to determine who made the claim and under what context. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wily D 08:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Dawn (novel)[edit]

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

I'm nominating this after an ongoing reversion war with an editor, since this is one of the most neutral ways to go about this without continuing with the reversion war. The issue is that this book is not notable right now and might never be. There are only two usable reviews out there, one for Publishers Weekly and one for Kirkus Reviews, only one of which is actually linked in the article. Two reviews are not enough to show notability. There's a link to the author's page for a review from another author, but we only get the blurb and have no way of knowing exactly whether or not the quote is taken in context or not. That's another issue with the page: it suffers from a non-neutral point of view and reads as highly promotional. There's also some original research going on in the article, with the content being sourced by primary sources that don't entirely back up everything in the article. I've also noticed a rampant amount of copyvio, as evidenced by the bookjacket summary being used in the article. WHile the article for Hughes needs work as well, I initially redirected it to the author's page but the reversions have gotten so bad and there's a good argument for outright deleting the page, so I'm listing it here. The book is listed as publishing on the 16th, but is already available for sale so I can't say for certain that it'll receive any more publicity than it already has. We can't keep an article based on the idea that it might eventually get reviews. That violates WP:CRYSTAL. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It did occur to me to suggest redirecting this to the author's page but I will bow to Tokyogirl79's hands-on experience; I know how frustrating these reversion wars can be for the well-intentioned patroller and she's given this more thought than I have. I do not believe that this meets any of the five criteria of WP:BKCRIT, although the two reviews are, as she says, usable. If at some future point the book meets any of the categories, the article can go to deletion review. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. While I don't know the exact protocol to officially repudiate a Request for Deletion, I hope the response I'm writing here will be sufficient enough for why I believe that prematurely deleting this page will be a grave mistake. With that, I find Tokyogirl79's comments to be absurd and, for reasons beyond me, negatively biased towards Jobie Hughes as though her remarks are meant to be personal and done solely out of spite. To counter her first claim, i.e., that the book is not notable, I couldn't disagree more. This is the debut literary novel from a very established writer whose first two books both hit #1 on the New York Times bestsellers list, and collectively held onto the top spot for 10 total weeks. Though "At Dawn" is being marketed as a "debut," Jobie Hughes is not a debut author, nor is he somebody coming onto the scene for the first time. He's established to the point that he's had a blockbuster Hollywood film adapted from his first novel by DreamWorks Studios. While I agree with Tokyogirl79 that two reviews are insufficient by themselves, let's not forget that the book is still a full week away from being published. Per the author's own website, he'll be kicking off a four-city book tour that begins this Saturday, Oct. 13th, and will include seven different book signing/reading events in addition to three individual radio interviews. Based on this publicity alone, and given his publishing background and the feature articles that have been written on him in the past (one in the Wall Street Journal, another in New York Magazine--both of which are used as citations on the author's main wikipedia page), I think it's safe to assume many more reviews and interviews will be forthcoming leading up to the book's release... In response to Tokyogirl79's claim of copyvio evidenced by the book jacket summary being used in the article... She was right, the old synopsis did in fact use the book jacket synopsis pretty much verbatim. But since I was one of the fortunate few to receive an early galley of Mr. Hughes's novel two months ago, I have rewritten the article's synopsis so that plagiarism is no longer an issue while the integrity of the synopsis remains in place and is as strong as it originally was. Furthermore, I believe the content of this page is very neutral, and contains nothing promotional whatsoever aside from the only two reviews currently available, both of which are glowingly positive. But when did including Critical Reception become a promotional ploy? To use Tokyogirl79's own words, "I can't say for certain that it'll receive any more publicity than it already has." No, she can't. Which is precisely why I believe deleting this article is premature, especially when the book hasn't even been released. I firmly believe the publicity has only just begun, and it's my greatest hope that the editors who decide the fate of such pages will give this particular page a fighting chance. As an author with strong publishing credentials, I believe Jobie Hughes is owed that much. ohioana (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. The author of this book has been considered sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, but after reading [38] this, I'm not sure that even that is merited. Mr. Hughes was apparently a student doing work-for-hire and was paid a pittance to collaborate on two notable books with an extremely well-known author, James Frey; that collaboration is now ended. I do not regard this as "strong publishing credentials"; I regard this as a strong hint that no one will ever hear of Mr. Hughes' work again. There is a strong odour of publicity-seeking around all this and I ask the closing admin to take that into consideration when considering the arguments put forward by the SPA creator. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, books do not gain notability by being written by a notable writer. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Very, very few writers are ever notable enough to where all of their works are considered notable. To get to that point you have to be as wildly notable as say, Edgar Allan Poe or Shakespeare, and even then the general idea is that being that notable means that their works would've been discussed at some level or depth in some format. As far as publicity goes, we can't keep article based upon the idea that it may eventually get coverage in various sources. That's not how Wikipedia works. We can't keep articles because you personally think that it'd get notice.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as reception sections go, I'm a big fan of them because it enables me to keep so many articles. BUT one of the biggest issues of reception sections is that you must find a neutral way of summing up the reviews. The way you've written them are done in a fashion to ensure that the reviews are written in the best way possible, which is seen as promotion. The PW review wasn't really all that glowing, saying that the book "is ultimately marred by a familiar plot, too-perfect characters, heavy-handed morals, and an obsessive symmetry". You seem to be bent upon writing the review section in a way that only highlights the positives of the book, which is when something goes from being neutral to being promotional. That's why you can never really take reviews blurbs posted on author or publisher sites as the core truth. It's in the best interest of the author/publisher to promote the book in the best light possible because they want sales. Saying that PW said "it's good BUT..." doesn't look as good on the book jacket or author website. I'd also like to say that this sentence: "A type of bildungsroman, the book has been hailed as "a fresh and original coming-of-age story set against our modern times."[3]" has been said by no one other than the publisher and again, the publisher is going to say praise for their books, which is why you can't use publisher praise to show notability and it should be avoided in general. And again, just because someone is known for one element does not guarantee publicity later on when they publish something that isn't what they initially gained publicity for. Considering that Hughes only received notice for the Lorien Legacy in relation to his working relationship with Frey going sour, it's not like he was repeatedly reported on otherwise. You can't guarantee publicity and that there's so little of it right now at this point at time and considering how little attention the book has gotten so far, there's good enough reason to justify that it might never receive enough publicity to really warrant having an article. This is one of those things that is better served by being redirected to the author's article, but since you've pretty much stated that this isn't an option I've listed it for AfD to let it be settled here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What can we say? Utterly fails WP:BK. Is there anyone who can read WP:BK and honestly say that this insignificant novel actually satisfies the requirements for inclusion? The answer, obviously, is no. It's as simple as that. The article must be deleted. The argument that this non-notable book is somehow notable because its author used to be a ghostwriter is downright absurd. BTW, everything put out by the New York presses gets reviewed in PW and Kirkus, so those reviews actually mean absolutely nothing when it comes to notability. Qworty (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to argue that it does count towards notability, at least technically. They're just not enough to show it passes WP:NBOOK since there's only two of them. I've used them before in articles, but I've had enough people argue about the brevity of the reviews, saying that they're ultimately trivial sources at best. It's one of those things that at this particular point in time is something that falls under the column of reliable reviews, but probably won't in another 4-5 years of Wikipedia evolution.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody with a book coming out of New York gets PW and Kirkus. Are we now going to say that every book published by a New York press is by default notable? I think not. Qworty (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, not every book published out of New York gets a PW review. There are so many books being published these days it is almost unimaginable, more English-language novels were published in 2010 than during the entire Victorian era (somewhere over 100,000). We should expect to have a lot of notable books because the pool is so large. PW is a good resource to help determine which ones are notable. --Green Cardamom (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the lack of PW and Kirkus reviews would certainly be an indication of a lack of notability, but PW and Kirkus reviews by themselves--as we have in this instance--are insufficient to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete support the delete because there are not enough sources. The book was added too soon. Once the sources are available the article could probably be recreated. Or maybe incubate it to make it easy. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with either of those options- incubation would probably be a good option in this case because while we can't predict that there won't be coverage, it has a better chance than some of the other stuff that gets added to the mainspace.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Someone jumped the gun on this. This is why we have Special:Mypage. Reexamine in ten years.--Auric (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Under WP:BK, reviews can establish notability. There are two reviews in independent sources. The problem is that the guideline goes on to say, "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." I'm not sure this is the case with these reviews, which are quite brief. The book does not satisfy any of the other criteria in WP:BK. Hence delete unless and until more substantial coverage can be found. --Batard0 (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jobie Hughes. I don't see that sufficient notability has been established to justify a seperate article about this book at this stage. If more reviews or notable attention can be found, I would change my vote. Fireflo (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nomination Withdrawn - thanks for the extra eyes. (non-admin closure) Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastman’s Royal Naval Academy[edit]

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

Primary schools are not considered inherantly notable and the sourcing here is inadequate. Google - nothing obviously notable, google books - NIL result and Google books - 3 mentions as a place of education. Nothing here to pass GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the creator of the article, I don't much care. I created it only in order to resolve several red links. I agree that the sourcing is thin, though I would remark that Google is not an infallible measure of notability of historical articles.
If the article isn't notable, nor are the links to it, so if the article is deleted, I ask the requester to take responsibility for going to the pages that link to it and cleaning up the links. Stanning (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Google is not infallible but I have made an effort and reviewed the sources provided so really its down to anyone wanting to keep this to demonstrate the article meets the GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A historical school like this one is less likely to have on-line coverage. In this case, we have several pages of reasonably detailed content about the school in Jonathan Betts' book about Rupert Gould and published by Oxford University Press (although, for some reason, Google Books displays this content inconsistently and without the usual linking apparatus)[39]. GBooks also turns up a footnote in another book[40] pointing to a 9-page article about the school in the Mariner's Mirror (per the footnote, the reference is: H. Owen, "Eastman's Royal Naval Academy Southsea", Mariner's Mirror, vol. 77, 1991, pp. 379-87). This is enough to show that sufficient sourcing exists, albeit not easily accessible on line. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep For a small 19th century school, I would consider the sourcing to meet basic notability. It has rather more comment on it than I'd expect most schools to achieve, thus indicating that this particular school was indeed unusually noted. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true that articles on primary schools are usually deleted, and I would usually support such deletions. However, in this case its age and its unusual nature (i.e. its ties to the Royal Navy) make it notable in my opinion. In addition, I'm not convinced it was purely a primary school in the modern sense of the word, as issues of The Times from the 19th century show individuals being commissioned directly into the Royal Navy and Royal Marines from it at the age of at least 15 or 16. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Brusco[edit]

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

No indication in the article that this professor meets WP:BIO or stands out or otherwise meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). No clear indication from a quick web search. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at search engine results, this person could possibly be notable enough for the Italian language Wikipedia, but there's not enough in English for him to warrant an article here, therefore failing WP:BASIC. The article itself also appears unencylopaedic.--SUFC Boy 11:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability standards of English Wikipedia do not depend on the languages in which sources are written. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There seems to be at least borderline notability. According to GScholar, h-index of 13, but five papers with 50+ citations. Also, apparently, quite a number of GNews hits in Italian. PWilkinson (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 18:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can only find 1 paper in WoS having no citations (there is another S Brusco who has some highly cited papers in economics, but this seems to be a different person who was at UMRE). Moreover, the article does not actually make any claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The result was Deleted as hoax. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise World Tour[edit]

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

I'm very confused by this article. It seems to refer to a tour by the "Coldplayers," a band that doesn't exist. I thought that maybe it was Coldplay, but Coldplay's website says they're touring in Australia in November, not Europe or the U.S. Furthermore, there's no reference anywhere on Google to a "Paradise World Tour," which makes me think this may well be a hoax. Since I'm not 100% sure, though, and because the dates and other details are precise and abundant, I thought it best to ask a wider audience. Is this a hoax or a real tour? Batard0 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A note to all: since listing the AfD, the editor who created the article has changed the name of the tour in the infobox to "New Beginnings: World Tour," which incidentally is another article with the same content as Paradise World Tour. The user has also deleted the AfD tag while making these edits; I'm not sure how to revert it without losing the other edits. I note that I'm unable to find anything in a Google search about an artist named "Freefall" or a tour called "New Beginnings". By point of information, I also refer interested parties to the user's talk page, which shows a previous creation (and deletion) of Paradise Tour for overlap with Mylo Xyloto Tour. --Batard0 (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sidi Bel Abbas sanctuary arson[edit]

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

unsolved arson case in Spain lacks notability Jason from nyc (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Just not notable" is an indequate deletion rationale. Could you please explain why you believe this not to be notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, let me argue the case. Arson destroying religious institutions is sadly too common. A quick google shows [41] and [42] and [43]. We have some articles on Wikipedia concerning church arson such as 2010 East Texas church burnings but we don’t have entries for every individual arson. The Sidi Bel Abbas arson is just one of many. The arson in this case is said to “burned by unknown parties” and then we cite speculation as to the perpetrators. We have no citation in which this arson is the main topic. I don’t find any further references and it’s been almost three years since any substantial material has been added. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 18:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Multiple searches failed to turn up anything resembling substantial coverage, espcially of a persistent nature. Sadly, I have to agree that such acts of arson are, unfortunately, too commonplace to confer any notability to the present case. The speculation in the article does not add any value, either, and without it, there isn't very much left. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lildo[edit]

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

A supposed cocktail, that I can find no evidence of its existance. Either it was completely WP:MADEUP, or has no notability. Either way, it should be deleted. I've found a few bars named "Lildo", but nothing to indicate that they have any sort of drink named for them that is notable. PROD was removed by the article creator without comment. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this isn't the personal creation of the article's primary author, it's indistinguishable from that. Searches for "lildo" that include any or all of the ingredients are entirely unproductive (for example: [44]). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the key ingredient in this drink is the commercial "Sourz" liqueur. A search for "lildo" and "sourz" produces nothing. I was also unable to find any mention of this drink (ingredients-wise) with respect to the Sourz brand. Non-notable and likely either made up by the author or by a local pub. SQGibbon (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A completely undocumented drink, leaving editors like me to wonder if this is a hoax. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Business Architecture . MBisanz ^talk 18:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Building blocks (enterprise architecture)[edit]

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

This is an essay on an apparent neologism. It is sourced entirely to a book by Mark Von Rosing and was created by User:Markvonrosing I have looked and I can't find any additional sources for this usage of the term, so I believe this fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into Business Architecture. The current article indeed lacks notability, and there is a COI. I do think (some) parts of it could be merged into the Business Architecture article. -- Mdd (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't checked the rest, but the Building_blocks_(enterprise_architecture)#The_generic_characteristics_of_Building_Blocks section is a very close paraphrase of 32.2.2 in The Open Group Architecture (TOGAF Framework 2007 edition). So a WP:COPYVIO at the heart of what is probably the main section that might be considered for saving into the Business Architecture article. AllyD (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oeps... There seems to be a mayor problem indeed. I did some checking myself. For example in Google books, I search for the sentence "A building block is a package of functionality defined to meet the business needs across an organization.", see here. This sentence alone gives three hits.

I also noticed that the introduction of the article, the first two sentences, are copy/pasted from the Business Architecture article. This has happened in the first version of the article, see here, without any copy/paste notification. This is also not acceptable. -- Mdd (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete On the broader point raised in the nomination, "building block" is a term used in TOGAF, in Zachman, etc. and might therefore merit recognition. However my own view is that it is simply providing an illustrative real world analogy chosen from the nursery floor, and not a specific usage in itself. AllyD (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to David_Petraeus#Personal_life. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Petraeus[edit]

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

Although his father is a notable general, notability is not inherited and there are no assertions of notability besides for his father. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it is correct that notability is not inherited, I believe he is still notable given the fact that his father mentioned him explicitly in a Congressional hearing during a discussion on Afghanistan. Furthermore, I provided several sources which show media interest in Stephen Petraeus, though I admit the article needs improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Kolvenbach (talk • contribs) 16:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to David Petraeus, where a couple of sourced sentences already exist about Stephen. I don't see any indication that he is separately notable in the Wikipedia sense.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no reason for this individual to have an article. Being mentioned a couple of times in the media because your father is famous (or even being mentioned in a public hearing by your famous father) does not equate to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mentions by his father or pictures taken of him by the media with his father does not make Stephen notable. Though widely covered it is little more than trivial coverage that does not address Stephen in detail so he fails WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP given that this is a living person with no specific grounds for being considered notability. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP; US-cruft. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:SIGCOV and does not meet BLP criteria. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to parent article as sources exist. K7L (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per past outcomes; see, e.g., Roderick Wetherill, Jr.. We have almost always merged miltary sons' articles into their more notable fathers' articles. I can't see why this should be treated any differently. If anyone has a better argument for outright deletion, in light of past precedent, please come forth now. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya-Boy A.M.C[edit]

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

Non-notable artist; only one source in the article has even a pretense of reliability, and even it is dubious. Some spam concerns with earlier versions of the article, though it's not so bad at the moment. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage for this person in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 20:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following is copied from the AfD's talk page, where a user mistakenly left a comment: "Hi, I'm not really sure how i could get this page kept unless someone else knew information i didn't. I guess if no one does add anything it will have to just be deleted. Thanks for the help anyway! --WikiProInfoGuy (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)WikiProInfoGuy" Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was : Deleted, unreferenced and non-notable crackpottery copy-and-pasted from a blog. (Perhaps not a copyright violation, though - it may well be the author who posted it to Wikipedia.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primevergen[edit]

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

This article is a fringe theory. A Google search yielded this cached page which was copy/pasted into Wikipedia. It lacks notability and reliable sources. Senator2029 • talk 13:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant copyvio from a blog. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 as blatant copyright violation from a now-deleted (but available via Google archive, as noted above) blog page. In case this is recreated without the copyright violation, I'd also delete on the merits; this is very fringe physics/theology with nothing resembling coverage in a reliable source. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. This close is without objection to userfication if a user is interested in volunteering their userspace. MBisanz ^talk 18:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenzin Wangchuck[edit]

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

No sources listed, nor any to be found, for this extensive biography. Based on the similarity between the creator's username and the birthplace of the article's subject, I suspect this is an extensive personal memoire. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 14:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and add to Chinese Wikipedia - Google Books provided this book with three mentions to Tenzin Wangchuk. Google Books also provided this book that suggests he was a Tibetan political prisoner. This book also provides what appears to be a relevant mention. Unfortunately, any additional sources or information may not be English or haven't been transferred to the Internet yet, so if this is the case, it would be better to add it to Chinese Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chinese and the English WPs cover the same scope exactly: the entire world, and both of them use sources in any language--it is absurd to suggest that something belongs there rather than here. The person has been verified as a major disciple of Rinpoche. If he founded a monastery, he;s notable. It's not a BLP. Incidentally, why would the Chinese Wikipedia be particularly relevant in any case? He was Bhutanese; he apparently worked in Tibet & Bhutan, and we have both a Dzongkha and a Tibetan Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be but there isn't any evidence of a native name to search Tibetan or Dzongkha Wikipedia. Users who are familiar with Tibetan or Dzongkha are free to search for sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to questionable notability/lack of sourcing. It is not clear whether or why he is a notable monk (for an encyclopedia). There are also no sources that might provide evidence to his notability or allow content verification. This article could only be kept with clear evidence for notability and proper sourcing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I'm relisting to see if we can get Tenzin Wangchuck's name in either Tibetan or Chinese script. I'm going to post requests at the appropriate WikiProjects. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've left notes at WikiProject Buddhism, WikiProject Bhutan, WikiProject Tibet, and WikiProject China. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Tenzin Wangchuk would be བསྟན་འཛིན་དབང་ཕྱུག་ (bstan-'dzin dbang-phyug) in Tibetan or 丹增汪曲 in Chinese.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know this doesnt help much in itself, but he's got the same hometown as Lhatu Wangchuk and obviously also the same last name, so maybe some sources that are mostly about Lhatu will mention his relatives. ☮Soap☮ 23:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good research, but I doubt Tenzin Wangchuk is part of the Wangchuck family. "Wangchuck" is a common given name, and most Tibetans (and, I believe, their Bhutanese cousins) have two given names and no family name (I note that neither of his parents were named Wangchuck). Moreover, the subject is a religious teacher, so "Tenzin Wangchuck" is probably an ordination name. By analogy, if there were a prominent Paul family in Italy, it would still be an unlikely guess that Pope John Paul was a member of it – even if he had been from their home town.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some sources can be found. Eeekster (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wangchuck is from Bhutanese Dzongkha, a Southern Tibetan language. Should be kept as notable for Monastery founding. Meclee (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "should be kept" based on what sources? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: from the way this article is written, it sure seems like useful encyclopedic content, so it seems like it would be a shame to delete it. Without sources, though, we can't prove that. Maybe it could be userfied?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in UFC events (January to March)[edit]

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

It is redundant and was the product of a failed attempt to omnibus event articles. The effort was heavily resisted by the editting community and pushed only by a few people who have since realized its uselessness. This page is irrelevant, orphaned, and not maintained. I remember halloween (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all above. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even an article on the whole year would be questionable, per "not news." BigJim707 (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per I remember halloween
LlamaAl (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 in UFC events (April to June) is the same as this article. They should've been nominated both together, and perhaps with List of UFC events in 2012 as well. I see nothing wrong with List of UFC events as it links to mostly blue links and thus aids in navigation. The list should be merged there. This article had a lot more content previously. [45] The combined list should include who competed and who won each event. Dream Focus 09:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was already deleted by Sphilbrick. No specific CSD criterion cited, although several likely applied. Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fabric (Python library)[edit]

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

Not notable, no reliable sources, previously deleted via Prod and restored, no significant content. GregJackP Boomer! 11:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It'sa merely one sentence and no reference. Maybe someone who knows Python could merge the sentence appropriately (incl. at least one good source) into the article on Python. CeesBakker (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 18:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos computing[edit]

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

Not really an article and has been in this state for five years. Parts are advertisements ("the new concept of ChaoGate presents its novel and brilliant property"). Momotaro (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's more of an essay than a Wikipedia article, and I am missing proper references. CeesBakker (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I went looking into the article for a way to save it (as I am well versed in the subject). It is so poorly written, it would be less daunting to replace it with a wikified stub length article than clean it up. We aren't a clearinghouse for essay writers. The Illusive Man^(Contact) 19:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an encyclopedic topic here as indicated by the number of references. I've done a big edit to the article to make it less essay like and fix some of the problems mentioned above. BTW The originator of the article Ditto8711 (talk · contribs) may well be William Ditto who is a Dean University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa and does have considerable academic credentials.[46] --Salix (talk): 11:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a background in classical and quantum chaos and note that idea of using chaotic dynamic systems for computation has been around for quite a while. In addition to the work of Leon Chua and others noted in the references in the article, physicists such as Jim Crutchfield and Doyne Farmer have studied "Computing at the edge of chaos". In my opinion, the topic is well above the threshold for notability. I did not see the previous version, but Salix' rewrite has removed the marketing hype and added a bit of background. As it stands the article us useful and is a good base for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark viking (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now, after the good work of a benevolent white willow. --Momotaro (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted and salted as repeatedly created. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Rasheed Creation's[edit]

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

I think this person is not notable. Dental plan (Lisa needs braces) 09:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for Speedy Deletion as non notable individual. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Marshall[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was: Fails WP:NBOX and other relevant criteria for notability. Contested by User:EdwardMarshall1990, stating: Removed deletion notice as this page qualifies and is recognised by the Victorian Amateur Boxing Authority, one that has produced many Australian Olympic boxers who fall under the category of IBF Original concern still remains. The subject of the article is a boxer who competed on the amateur level with a record of 8 fights. The article does not indicate that he reached any kind of international or even national level. Phileasson (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no question that Marshall was indeed an amateur boxer affiliated with the VABF, nor that several of Australia's Olympians came from its ranks. But the concern is that Marshall himself did not - had he been an olympic competitor, he'd be notable. That's not the case. Had he reached the professional ranks, or achieved honors in the amateur ranks (Fighter of the year from some notable federation/publication, for example), then you might make the case that he's notable for that. And you wouldn't be wrong. But there's little evidence of that either. I'm happy to change my recommendation if someone (EdwardMarshall1990, perhaps?) can bring additional sources that show some real notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On notability grounds. Not inherited.Peter Rehse (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following the comments from Phileasson and PRehse. Janggeom (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Per SNOW, strengthened by BLP concerns. See comments by contributors below. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Jiwey[edit]

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

Filing on behalf of the page creator, User:Susanjiwey. Deletion has been requested, but due to the number of other editors who have contributed to the page, G7 can't be used to speedy delete it. The page creator claims to be the article subject; this has yet to be established through OTRS, though it seems likely. In cases of borderline notability BLPs, we tend to honour the request of the subject for deletion. I myself offer no opinion on the matter one way or another. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be preferable to have an OTRS ticket verifying the request and the reasons for it, although this is no guarantee that the article will be deleted. See for example, Articles for deletion/Marina Poplavskaya. That case was slightly different in that the subject was undeniably notable and had not contributed to the article in any way. She simply objected to being on Wikipedia. With autobiographies, the subjects usually request deletion when they find they cannot control the article's contents or find it tagged with unflattering templates, e.g. [47]. I think we'll have to decide this on notability criteria alone.
Weak delete although willing to change my mind. When I first edited the article in 2010 my edit summary was "copy-edit for overly promotional and unencyclopedic language, add some inline cites but the notability is extremely marginal". There's not a lot since then which would change that assessment. There's no evidence of in-depth, significant, independent coverage of her in either the general press or the specialized opera press which would allow it to pass via the general notability guidelines. It doesn't really pass any of the alternative guidelines for musicians either. She has sung some leading roles but with pretty minor companies, e.g. Opéra de Baugé, OperaUpClose and Grange Park Opera—the latter as part of a "young artist" program. The OperaUpClose production of La bohème was performed in the 150 seat Soho Theatre [48] but did win the 2011 Olivier Award for best new opera production. No recordings with major labels, nor has she placed 1st or 2nd in a major singing competition. Voceditenore (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion as been notified to WikiProject Opera. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there are several one phrase passing mentions of her performances ("gamely dispatched by Susan Jiwey" etc) but no "significant" coverage or analysis. If the article was created by the subject and the subject does not want the article, I am all for not having another ultra low notability BLP article that we would have to maintain. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absent showing of notability The article was apparently created by the subject. The reason given in her request for speedy deletion was "inaccurate and out of date.". I did not search extensively, but the editing history appears to contain no inappropriate personal information. I think this is simply a matter of notability. If there is not sufficient ongoing information available to keep it updated it should be deleted as not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Bauder (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 October 2012

The article's subject did attempt to update it in January 2011 [49], but virtually all of the material added was removed as unreferenced COI by another editor in this series of edits. However, what had been added and removed doesn't really equate to additional evidence of notability. Voceditenore (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Fred Bauder, above. The lack of obvious notability makes this a simple call - even without the wishes of the subject in the mix. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as my default vote when a BLP of marginal or questionable notability quests deletion of an article on themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, per FredB ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem notable, and on borderline we should honour the subjects opinion.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Diesel[edit]

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

Page cites no reliable source for the subject matter; title itself is just a neologism; with the how-to content removed, what remains is mixed factoids already found other other related pages. I did search for reliable sources that support the topic and found none. E8 (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Notability has not been established for this topic. Googling produces Youtube videos and references to a cannabis variant, but nothing reliable related to the subject.--E8 (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a dictionary like definition that brings no real context or new knowledge to light. Could just as easily exist as a redirect to a level 4 header under Diesel, or even as a brief mention in the main article. The Illusive Man^(Contact) 19:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTo note: statement above is simply copy and pasted dispite changes made to the page. Cultural alternative fuels written an recorded existance cannot hinge on the pleasing of a few lobbiest copy and pasting canned messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.168.4 (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRecomend not to delete page for the following reasons: Page has source quoted from chemistry text book. "Organic Chemistry"/ Francis A. Carey & Robert M. Giuliano, New York.

CommentFuel itself is described as a nickname of "black diesel" and is infact describes a cultural popular formula and process. It is a popular cultural nickname and is very abundenlty discussed the world over through many mediums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.168.4 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentCandidly wondering whats the sudden modivation to focus on page deletion so aggresivly. Actions seem consistant with growing number of products reaching the market that are using the popular concept. Seems it will cause competion over used oil and offer fuel alternatives to consumers, ever so slightly breaking fuel suppliers monopolies.

Comment This anonymous user is edit-warring and refusing to discuss the problems with the page. I have commented at length here regarding specific issues with this page. Please stop with the WP:FRINGE conspiratorial nonsense.--E8 (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User E8 is erasing the content thats been there for a few years over and over. If he requests a discussion, it is not his right to delete the content that is to be discussed. I request E8 to be blocked fron the page. There seems to be a serious bias in connection to his actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.168.4 (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented regarding WP:BURDEN on the page's talk.--E8 (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. --Malerooster (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't find any sources. Other than black, diesel, and fuel, the article does not contain any other clues on where to look for other sources.Doesn't meet WP:GNG.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012-13 Rhyl and District Junior Football League U-13/14's[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No notability established per WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. The article is about a current season in a junior league for U13/U14 football players. I completely understand that the league and its current season are important for the young players, but IMHO it's quite far from being notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Furthermore no sources provided that might establish any kind of notability. Phileasson (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no apostrophe in "U-13/14's". Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject

Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly non-notable. Giant Snowman 11:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7), absolutely no indication of notability. – Kosm1 fent 11:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator's reason. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a speedy (A7) to me: No indication of notability at all. --Mentoz86 (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above. --Braniff747SP (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Kante4 (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Health Action Party[edit]

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

Fails our notability guidelines on organisations and on political parties. Whilst well sourced, this article is ultimately about a pressure group, without any evidence to support its notability or importance. If it is a political party, there has not been any elections to warrant its inclusion on Wikipedia. If it's a pressure group, there's not been enough pressure enacted on government or elsewhere to justify its place here either. Whilst the NHAP does have a former MP amongst its founders, notability does not "transfer" across (to my understanding). doktorb _words^deeds 06:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article and a little searching show it has been the specific subject of a number of articles in highly reliable sources, which is what notability means at Wikipedia.John Z (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets the terms of WP:ORG as "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" and it passes all the provisos given there. The call for deletion is not using criteria from WP:ORG or WP:GNG: arguments in AfD should be based on Wikipedia policy not personal views of what should or shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This appears to be an attempt to take Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern beyond being a mere local policitical party. In that the lcoal party had considerable success, with the MP sitting for two parliaments and controlling the district council. The article cites coverage in a lcoal newspaper, which should be sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism is Joy[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. No claim to notability, fails WP:GNG Nounique names 05:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not as rigid as far as notability is concerned. But the article itself is one sentence only. What information is that? CeesBakker (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, except that I would say it also has no claim to notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharmlessCoin (talk • contribs) 13:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, I'm not convinced that merging would add anything to any other article, and there's no redirect target that mentions this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The song was part of a manga series thus it probably would've only received play through the series. The one reference provided is simply a video of an episode. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Esymi. MBisanz ^talk 22:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aris Esymis F.C.[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "A Greek football club with its only claim of participation a 4-year Delta Ethniki spell in the 80's [50]. No participation in the Greek Football Cup and no media coverage in reliable sources besides routine match reports. Fails WP:GNG.", and it's still valid. PROD contested by Sporty21 (talk · contribs) without providing a reason. – Kosm1 fent 04:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 04:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Delta Ethniki as possible search term, but no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not currently participating in the Delta Ethniki. If anything, it should be redirected to the league it currently plays (Evros Football Clubs Association). – Kosm1 fent 08:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that league is not the claim to notability. Giant Snowman 17:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:With reference to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST we get this result:

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

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

Q3. Has the club played in a league at the next highest level (listed in the Grey Column)? YES

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

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

The club therefore fails the test and should be deleted. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - per League Octopus: non-notable club. --Mentoz86 (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Esymi. I'm not acquainted with coverage of lower-league football in Greece, and don't read the language, but this club spent four years in the Greek fourth tier within the last 20 years. One level above that, a club's players would be presumed notable, let alone the club itself. However, there's nothing in the article to confirm its meeting WP:CORP or WP:GNG. It's a likely search term, and merging/redirecting to the article about the place it played would seem appropriate.
As to reference to "WP:NTEST" above, I'm a little surprised that a WP:N prefix is being used on a shortcut to a userspace essay. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no clubs lower than the third level are admitted in the Greek Football Cup and I argued on a previous AfD that the Greek Amateur Cup doesn't receive enough coverage for clubs to be granted automatic notability; so how should such an article about a Greek club which fails GNG be kept? – Kosm1 fent 14:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the Greek Cup had only been restricted to the top three divisions since 1971? But the idea that notability attaches to appearing in a national cup is unconvincing. The convention sort-of-works for English football, not because appearing in a cup atracts enough coverage for presumed notability (it doesn't, generally), but because clubs have to be playing at a certain level to qualify for entry to national cups, and at that level they can be loosely considered to get enough "significant" coverage to pass GNG. That's not necessarily the case elsewhere: as has been pointed out many times, even the tiniest registered club can enter the French Cup, and coverage of lower-league football varies massively from country to country.
Which is why I said I wasn't well enough acquainted with how much coverage there is, or has been in the past, of lower-league football in Greece to comment specifically. It just strikes me as very odd that there appears to be such a sharp line between third and fourth tiers: that a player with appearances in the third tier would have a presumption of notability, i.e. would be likely to have attracted enough non-trivial independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, yet it's not likely that a club playing for several seasons just one level lower would attract a comparable standard of coverage. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've said many times in the past that players with only third level appearances in Greece should not be considered notable. Non-routine coverage on (most) Delta Ethniki clubs reeks as much as non-routine coverage on Football League 2 or sometimes even Football League players; so, to my view, there is no sharp line at all. ;) IMO, using participation in a national cup for clubs is as bad a notability standard as participation in a fully pro league for players; none of which makes a statement for the quantity and quality of coverage in reliable sources. Regards. – Kosm1 fent 15:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With limited entry in the Greek Cup it will always be difficult for clubs competing in lower-league football to prove notability. If we look at the Greek Cup in Greek Wikipedia say from 1961/62 to 1970/71 there are certainly a lot more clubs listed than we have in RSSSF and English Wikipedia. In the interest of fairness (particularly as most of us cannot read Greek) it would be most helpful if the missing details can be added to English Wikipedia. It would be particularly helpful if for say a couple of years in the 1960s we "drill down further" and include all the clubs that competed in the Greek Cup - there must be an annual or two which contains this sort of stats. There is always a nagging doubt that clubs like Aris Esymis may have competed in the Greek Cup in the past. However any assessment we make is made in good faith using available information. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Some information is appearing on blogs such as filahtlos.blogspot.co.uk but reliability may be questioned. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Until 1971, amateur clubs could participate indeed – afterwards they could only participate in the Amateur Cup. However, it's not clear by what criteria they were chosen and from what I can see, they were drawn to play locally against each other in some kind of "qualification rounds" before the professional clubs came in. The only levels that always brought clubs to the cup were the first and second ones (the latter being enormous before the formation of the third level). In any case, Aris Esymis only participated in the Delta Ethniki during the 80's, a time when amateur clubs were not allowed to enter the Greek Cup. And for the record, there shouldn't be a "nagging doubt" about a couple appearances in a cup competition if coverage is lacking. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 19:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment both English Wikipedia and the RSSSF only cover quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals from 1931-32 to 1977-78. From 1978-79 coverage improves on English Wikipedia. Over a period of 36 seasons we only get 8 teams a season in the Greek Cup! Where are some of the other results? - there must be loads and loads of examples of lower division clubs playing higher ranked clubs from the top divisions. I know it is not always easy to access historical data but where such data is available (such as results in the 1960s in Greek Wikipedia) we should be using it. Because of the current dearth of historical information on the Greek Cup any AfD analysis that we undertake may be flawed. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Before 1978 only the final rounds are documented because there is no data about fixtures which were largely regional – ~~the el.wiki articles are allegedly sourced by a book which I'm trying to acquire, and even that doesn't go beyond the round of 32, where big clubs came in.~~ I said before that the local Football Club Associations picked a number of amateur clubs of their juristiction and they were set to play against clubs from neighbouring FCA's in qualification grounds before the pro clubs came in – there is no indication that these lowly fixtures ever gathered any attention even in local media (which at the time few existed). Don't confuse the Greek Cup with the English equivalent; in Greece it was never considered a "big deal" and the leagues were always the ones received the most coverage. And wrong, any AfD analysis we make will not be flawed, as ultimately all articles should pass GNG and that's easier to assess as it's not limited to season or competition – on the other hand, you need to show how a couple of cup participations affect coverage. ;) – Kosm1 fent 08:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After further inspection, it appears I was wrong; the el.wiki articles are entirely unsourced regarding to pre-quarterfinal rounds and the book I mentioned only conveys information on the 1962 final. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 09:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced on this one as I have no opportunity to help sort out the "wheat from the chaff". The "wheat" being lots of cup results of "small clubs" playing "big clubs" that would be of interest to us. In Finland for example I am able to access cup results up to around 1975 online from their National Sports Museum and I have the yearbooks for the next 30 years. In England I have in the past been along to the Football Association offices and obtained photocopies of the material I needed. There must be other options that an Editor in Greece could follow to help establish an improved information base on the Greek Cup - results coverage in old newspapers being one. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

With respect, I'm not sure where this is taking us. It goes without saying that improving Greek Cup pages on en:wp would be a good thing. But finding the name of Aris Esymis in a list of Greek Cup results won't magically make them likely to have received enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. There's no guideline, consensus or precedent to suggest that playing in national cup competition confers notability regardless of entry criteria or media coverage of that cup in that nation. Nearly 7,500 clubs enter the Coupe de France: most of them play in front of the proverbial three men and a dog in the local park. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My final word is that as things stand at present and the criteria we use there is in my view little hope of Aris Esymis and other similar clubs (that have played no higher than Delta Ethniki) of having an article. However, if it can be demonstrated that before 1971 a club has played in the Greek Cup (perhaps on a regular basis) it may be worth "going that extra mile" in an attempt to produce an article that passes WP:GNG. Greece only has 143 club articles and this debate highlights some of the current deficiences. It is very hard to even determine the Greek name for Aris Esymis and a starting point for a "more user friendly approach" would be to include the Greek names of all the clubs that are highlighted in the List of football clubs in Greece. How can we use Google sources and news tools properly if we cannot even establish the Greek name of the club? League Octopus (League Octopus 20:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I believe we should wreck the idea that playing in a national cup should confer any kind of notability, and replace that idea with League Octopus's essay that playing in a notable league should give some indication of notability. In the case of the Greek league system, I feel that it's a little wrong that only the 58 top clubs should have an article, compared to other European nations. But as long as we don't have editors that want to improve those articles, they will remain short stubs with no indication of notability. I still think this should be deleted, as it fails WP:GNG, but without prejudice for recreation if someone want to improve it. --Mentoz86 (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't argue with League Octopus' analysis above. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per League Octopus. Fails WP:GNG, no evidence cited or to be found by me after a search to counter this. --Batard0 (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Brief as it is, the information can be given in the Esymi page. Fireflo (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thodoris Papadopoulos[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league and has not received media coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG.", and it's still valid.

I'm also nominating the following contested PRODs and BLPPRODs for the same reason; none of them has ever played in a professional level:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 04:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - neither has played in a fully pro league or represented their country at senior level, which means that the articles fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. --Mentoz86 (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - none have played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning they all fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete did not play in a pro league or at senior level. fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Righteousskills (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Merging remains an editorial possibility that doesn't involved AfD, of course Wily D 08:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Seasons of Mary Azarian[edit]

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

no indication of notability given whatsover, from a fairly obscure (though notable) author. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The little weaknesses of the article shall not prevent us from providing the information to the user. I hope the author will enhance the article, still. CeesBakker (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mary Azarian. I believe that it would be much better suited there, along with any further articles on her works. (assuming they all remain comparable in length) CharmlessCoin (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent reliable sources in-depth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew McMahon[edit]

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

I created this page in hopes of helping my career with more publicity, unfortunately it has not met its intended purpose and gets vandalized frequently. I would simply like the page removed completely. I assume the corresponding picture will get deleted as well. I used Mattymc59 to initially set up the page, but subsequently forgot the password and immediately created this account, Sizzler8, to continue the construction of the page. You can see from the early edits of this page that I created all of the original content with these two accounts. I apologize for earlier trying to blank the page and picture, as I did not realize that it was not acceptable. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzler8 (talk • contribs)

Why not simply request page protection? — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would prefer if it was just removed completely. It hasn't met its intended purpose. I appreciate the input. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzler8 (talk • contribs)

Comment I think you'll find that Wikipedia is not the place to try and promote yourself. However, you'll also find that just because you want the article deleted, it doesn't mean that it will happen. I don't know what all the official policies are, but my understanding is that you won't be able to get this deleted simply because you claim to be the subject of the article and want it gone. For one thing, we have no proof that you are Matthew McMahon. I'm not saying you are lying, but we can't really take anyone's word for it or else someone could pretend to be Barack Obama and ask to have his article removed. Also, Wikipedia wants to have article about notable subjects, and I don't believe those notable subjects can overrule that. However, I'm not sure you'd meet the notability guidelines, so this page might end up getting deleted for that reason. AutomaticStrikeout 04:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of whether the nominator is the subject, this athlete doesn't appear to meet the qualifications for notability for a golfer yet. The article can be re-created later if he achieves a higher level of notability in the golf world. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:N at this time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CMX Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORP. I checked around and didn't find any additional sources. Right now, the article relies solely on the fact that the company achieved a rating of #3404 on a Top 5000 list. Ish dar ian 03:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia appears to have a number of corporate listings for companies that appear on lists or have only a short description. For example, why are these pages notable HostGator, Platinum Solutions, VTLS, TerreStar Networks, Architecture, Incorporated yet the one up for discussion considered subjectively not notable? I understand the points made, however I think the opinions are subjectively applied so I'm playing devil's advocate and recommending that this article remain and allow for more sources to be added. The author appears to want more time, so let's keep it. Fallbrews (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only database entries available; fails GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable company at this time, the listing achievement appears to be the only significance and would be insufficient. Google News archives provided one news article here and a reprint of this first one here. Considering that 2005 was the establishment, I narrowed results from 2005 to the present but found no additional relevant sources. However, I added "consulting" to the search and found two mentions here and here as part of a list. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't say I'm impressed by the refs. Having had a former astronaut on the management team means little - what qualification for management consultancy is being an astronaut? Being anywhere below the first ten on a sizeable list means little. And that basically is the content of the refs. Not what I would call widespread coverage. Not all companies get articles, and some fields are more prone to notability than others, largely because they are more in the public eye. Management consultancy isn't a line that tends to grab headlines, like banking does, or be widely known to people, like insurance is. It's more in the back room sort of area. I'm not saying the company isn't doing a good job. Whether it is or isn't is irrelevant here. If suitable references can be found to support a bit more of a claim to notability than having employed an astronaut, and doing jobs for the government, then I'll reconsider. Peridon (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ((uw-leave-astronauts-alone)), they can have advanced degrees and quite appropriate training for such a consultancy. Anyways, I'd be satisfied with just two more beefy discussions in independent reliable sources, to keep. Pretty low bar, really. --Lexein (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Article appears to have been substantially improved Wily D 08:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Bastion Road[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 2. Procedural nomination, I'm neutral. T. Canens (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Streets in Gibraltar#Streets in Gibraltar. It doesn't contain significant independent coverage. Ryan Vesey 03:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per improvements by Aymatth2, otherwise merge. Ryan Vesey 12:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which references added do you think improve the notability issue of the article? Your merge argument was that it didn't contain significant independent coverage, has this changed? If so, which reference(s) changed this? - Sudo Ghost 13:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "per WP:N, WP:SIGCOV, WP:OMGWTFBBQ, (insert other similarly subjective guideline here)" I'm actually not against it in any form and would much prefer it to be kept and be potentially improved, but watching all the nonsense nominations it already went through during last week I realized the fact that no matter what the article will not see the rest until a certain person will achieve his/her personal agenda. So let's just end all the petty arguing and finish this whole farce once and for all, shall we? Rndomuser (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being an unremarkable street without significant coverage beyond normal repair works and very minor local news. While a merge is better than having a standalone article on this, it doesn't make much sense to create articles listing non notable streets. Looking at the list of "planned articles" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar/to do doesn't give the impression of being restrictive at all. There is nothing that sets this road apart from millions of other roads in every town and city in the world. It hasn't played any significant historical role, isn't a touristic or shopping highlight, isn't a major thoroughfare, isn't renowned for its scenery, ... Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion" and so there is no case to answer. Wikipedia still has the function of a gazeteer per WP:5 and so a historic placename like this should remain a blue link. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Warden (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the "speedy keep" argument you propose completely? Including the "Exception: If the nominator indicates that the nomination is procedural in nature, then the nomination is ineligible for speedy keep. This includes a "relist" result from deletion review[...]"? part? Your speedy keep is clearly invalid here. As for the 5P, that says that "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." "Incorporating elements of" doesn't mean "every street that may perhaps be mentioned in a gazetteer should be a bluelink here". It is generally excepted that we include all geographic features (mountains, rivers, ...), and all officially recognised populated places (cities, towns, ...). Below that level, the general notability guidelines are the ruling factor. Notable streets may get an article, non notable ones don't. Fram (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is our policy that Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy nor a forum. We're here to write articles of this sort, not to have interminable discussions which loop back on themselves so that they never end. To have a deletion discussion, we require a clear statement of the supposed problem requiring deletion. The article has been subject to change and continues to be edited. A pointer to earlier discussions is therefore inadequate as grounds for a new discussion. It's like habeas corpus - a fundamental principle of law - that charges should be clearly stated so that prisoners are not kept indefinitely in limbo. See also Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Warden (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". That has to be the most self-defeating argument yet. As for "the object has been subject to change", yes, the fabrications that lead to the keep result of the previous AfD, and the exposure of them that lead to the "relist" at the DRV, have finally ended in the version I suggested as being a fair base of discussion being implemented (not by me). So we now have a decent, broadly correct article to base an AfD on, instead of the travesty you defended and aggravated last time. If you (and a few others) had played things fair the last time instead of ignoring our most basic policies, then one AfD would have been sufficient. But it is clear that policies only count when they fit your preferred result, and can safely be ignored otherwise. Your "speedy keep" above is a nice example, your blatant misuse of sources in the previous AfD is another. A fundamental principle of law is that you don't fabricate evidence nor lie to the court. If you want to invoke normal rules of law here, you should have long been blocked. Fram (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here come the personal attacks. The thing is, we've had all this already and it's time to say enough. Warden (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting on your edits. The content you contributed and defended was a bunch of lies. It's indeed time to say enough, that's why we have this new AfD and that's why you should be blocked. If you can't be trusted as an editor, you have become a liability. But that's something for a different forum. Fram (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a liar is a blatant personal attack; a well-known breach of parliamentary procedure. The facts about this road seem fairly indisputable and so the context here is bizarre. Warden (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/merge I am content to have an article on the road but what information actually exists about the road I think can be fully summarized in Streets in Gibraltar#Flat Bastion Road without damage. I think deleting it completely would not be productive and that the coverage which exists is at least worth a mention in a list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the great work of Aymatth I think this meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete:~~ Merge: Per WP:ILOVEFRAM and avoiding WP:BATTLEGROUND. --LauraHale (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Note: Believe it passes WP:GNG and merging in would actually be WP:UNDUE. The size and available sources mean that it would likely need to be spun out again so while merge/speedy delete, no bias against recreation as independent article per WP:GNG and WP:UNDUE but at the end of the day, I think avoiding WP:BATTLEGROUND should be the priority. --LauraHale (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (though I can't see anything worth merging that's not in the target article already): No evidence of notability for this road in reliable sources. My own Google searches turned up nothing even faintly promising in terms of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's basically an unremakable and WP:Run of the mill street, with coverage limited to news reports of road maintainance and the like that are of local interest only. This is by no means one of the major streets of the colony. Claims for historic significance are specious, as this applies to the bastion itself, and not to the road, which is of little, if any, historic significance. Notability is not inherited applies here. Not sure if there's even anything worth merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GHITS, google searches are not a reason to delete. In my experience, local libraries will hold good material about such topics and they are not known to Google. Local archives are the sort of place that the Gibraltarpedia project is well suited to investigate and they should be given reasonable time for such work - the article was only created a few days ago. Warden (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here we go again... "the article was only created a few days ago."? 17 July 2012, or 85 days ago. Fram (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We create articles based on actual relaible sources, not on the faint hope that someday, somehow, somewhere someone might perhaps find adequate sourcing in some hypothetical dusty basement or hatbox. If someone actually does do the research you suggest and come up with reliable sources that warrant writing a self-standing article, there is nothing to prevent them doing so in the future. The article as it now stands will not be of any help to them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains much useful geographical information which is nicely formatted and reasonably well presented. Deletion would be obviously disruptive to the process of development is it would make all this and its history available only to admins. There seems to be no reason for such disruption and the nomination does not provide one. You cite WP:Run of the mill but that is just an essay and we require policy-based reasons here. Our actual editing policy tells us to preserve such useful building blocks. Warden (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to cite WP:GHITS as an argument to avoid, you probably shouldn't then reply with an WP:ARTICLEAGE or WP:ITSUSEFUL rationale, because those aren't reasons to keep an article any more than WP:GHITS is a reason to delete it. - Sudo Ghost 11:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is grounded in policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:5. Warden (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is even remotely supported by WP policies, including the ones you cite. And your disruption argument is blatantly dishonest and uncivil. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's role as a gazetteer is well established by practise and policies such as WP:5. That's why, when you click random article, you often find obscure settlements such as Calflax, California, as I found just now. These have no special claim to fame but we cover them all regardless. It's much the same with all placenames and I regularly have success defending them here at AFD such as the recent rash of nominations of streets in Kansas City such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Boulevard (Kansas City). Topographical features and places are commonly well documented in geographical works such as atlases and so it's easy to verify the basic geographical facts. Nominating such places for deletion is disruptive because it generates useless pages like this discussion which waste the time and energy of our volunteer editors. That goes double when the discussion is repeated and protracted, as in this case. Warden (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that has no third-party reliable sources cannot adhere to WP:NPOV. Your reasoning is not grounded in WP:5 at all, and WP:PRESERVE says to "Preserve appropriate content." WP:N and WP:UNDUE both determine what is appropriate. I'm sure you believe your reasoning is grounded in these policies, but if they are you haven't explained why other than WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ARTICLEAGE, and these arguments are not very convincing ones. - Sudo Ghost 11:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OMG and WP:BURO, we shouldn't waste our time wikilawyering through all those WP links, though I could if I had to, believe me. My point for you is that you, yourself, seem content to work on other topics with marginal notability and of limited general interest such as linux distros like Parabola GNU/Linux. Please live and let live per WP:SAUCE. Warden (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So when you cite WP:5 et al it makes your comments policy-based reasoning but when that's shot down, it's suddenly wikilawyering. That's a rather hollow and disingenuous response to being disagreed with. I appreciate that you tried to go through my contribs to look for something, but I'm not exactly trying to keep articles in my interest area just because they exist, including the one you linked above. You should have looked a little deeper. - Sudo Ghost 04:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has plenty of sources, but not a single one of these are a third-party reliable source that describes the subject with any more than a trivial mention. The article fails the most basic notability criteria. Without such sources, the article has no third-party sources to keep the article in a neutral point of view, and an article that cannot follow a core content policy has no place on Wikipedia, no matter how useful it may seem. - Sudo Ghost 11:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Streets in Gibraltar, which seems the most obvious home for the content. Keep. I'm impressed by the work that Aymatth has done; it makes a decent stand-alone article now. A little less hysteria and aggressiveness from Fram would be helpful, too. Prioryman (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aggressive because I can't stand editors who think all means are justified in keeping articles, including deliberately misusing sources (and policies) and lying. I'm not really hysterical though. Fram (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's already a section on this road in that article, and what's already there seems a bit WP:UNDUE for the sources given. What are you suggesting there is to merge? - Sudo Ghost 12:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article hasn't been written properly yet!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth are you bringing WP:UNDUE into this? That refers to the amount of weight we give to a particular viewpoint, not how much we write about a a specific subject within an article. If we have the information on Flat Bastion Road, we expand that section. When we get the information on another street, we expand that section. This is all part of a process called building an encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey 16:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've read WP:UNDUE completely, while it does discuss viewpoints, that's not all it entails: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." There's already content in the article, and what's already there is already WP:UNDUE given the sources that exist in either article; there is nothing to merge. - Sudo Ghost 16:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue reading, shall we? "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". This falls under none of these categories. An article like Streets in Gibraltar is a collection of overall topics that should be filled with whatever information we have. Information on Flat Bastion or Flat Bastion magazine would be undue in this case. Ryan Vesey 17:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Yes, because if something isn't listed as an example, it clearly falls outside of the scope and policy should be ignored. You believe that because this situation isn't given as an example that it isn't WP:UNDUE? By all means, which sources do you think make it WP:DUE? You said "An article like Streets in Gibraltar is a collection of overall topics that should be filled with whatever information we have." and that seems to identify your issue, what you're saying suggests that you believe that Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information. That is not the case. That article, which itself is not likely to remain on Wikipedia, already contains information on the road. What is there is already WP:UNDUE given the very poor sources presented, there is nothing worth merging that is not already present. WP:UNDUE applies whether you want it to or not. - Sudo Ghost 18:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. The other article is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is fulfilling Wikipedia's role as a gazetteer, this article goes beyond that. The other article is clearly notable. There is no limit to what can be written about a notable article. There is nothing that says subject A isn't as notable as subject B, so subject A is limited to 23 kb. Once a topic is notable, there is no requirement that a source used in that article is talking specifically about the subject. It is only required that the sources support the fact stated in the article. Unless you have an argument saying that none of these sources support anything in the article, I do not understand what problem you have with those sources. In addition, can you please point out one thing that would make Streets in Gibraltar an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically relating to the information that would be merged? Ryan Vesey 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the other article is "clearly notable" is monumentally off the mark, and WP:UNDUE is the very thing you're suggesting does not exist. However, this discussion you're making would be appropriate for that article's AfD, which by the looks of that article will be soon. The point I was making was that there is no information in Flat Bastion Road that needs to be merged, because there is already information there about this subject, there is nothing that needs to be merged. - Sudo Ghost 18:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So your point is that because some information exists on Flat Bastion Road at the other article none should be merged? There is a large amount of information that does not exist in that article. Much of the History and Description section is not in the Streets in Gibraltar article. Ryan Vesey 18:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and that's where Wikipedia policy comes into play. Per the lack of third-party reliable sources, there is nothing worth merging. There are no third-party sources in the Flat Bastion Road article that contain anything more than trivial mentions. To merge that much information into an article meant to contain every road would be inproportate and that is what the Wikipedia policy exists for. You're welcome to disagree, but a core content policy cannot be so easily dismissed. - Sudo Ghost 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dismissing the policy! I've explained to you multiple times how WP:UNDUE isn't meant for this situation. You are free to have a different interpretation of WP:UNDUE, but you do not have a monopoly on the interpretation of the policy. The entire purpose of the policy is to prevent minor viewpoints to be written about as if they are major viewpoints. The policy goes on to create stipulations so that minor events (not viewpoints), don't become a large part of a biography giving that biography a point of view that isn't neutral. Wait a second, neutral? Did I just mention neutral? Let's see where WP:UNDUE is, shall we? WP:UNDUE is otherwise known as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. That section is a subsection of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality. The only purpose of what is stated in WP:UNDUE is to maintain a neutral point of view. I'm sorry, but this is so far away from a discussion on neutrality that WP:UNDUE isn't applicable in any way shape or form. Furthermore, any aspect of WP:UNDUE that you are using to state that the sources aren't good enough is irrelevant because this isn't a neutrality issue. If this doesn't convince you that WP:UNDUE, your interpretation of it is such that further discussion on this issue is completely pointless because it would be impossible to come to any sort of mutual agreeable decision. Ryan Vesey 19:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying the policy doesn't apply, solely because it's not specifically listed as an example (examples, last time I checked, are not definitive lists). You're selectively using the "viewpoints" aspect of WP:UNDUE as a means to dismiss the rest of WP:UNDUE, the "aspects" part, that actually pertains to this content. If WP:UNDUE says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." you can't then turn around and say "But it's not a viewpoint so WP:UNDUE doesn't apply" and suggest that an non-notable road is somehow justified in an inappropriate amount of content completely out of sync with the attention reliable sources give the road. You're more then welcome to disagree with the policy, but this is not "my interpretation", it is exactly how it is worded on the policy page. You cannot cherry-pick the policy and say that the parts you don't like are just someone's "interpretation". - Sudo Ghost 19:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to continue arguing about the applicability of WP:UNDUE with you, but I'll clear up one thing. Initially, I was applying WP:UNDUE to the situation and showing how it didn't lead to the conclusion you drew from it. In that case, I pointed to the examples of what undue does affect to show that this wasn't in the same area as those examples. Saying that I'm saying it doesn't apply solely because it isn't specifically listed is completely incorrect. The fact of the matter is, those are about a completely different type of things. But I wasn't thinking in those earlier examples. I had no reason to discuss how to apply WP:UNDUE. As I pointed out in my last response, and you so easily ignored, WP:UNDUE is about a different subject entirely. It is about the neutrality of a topic. We aren't dealing with an issue of neutrality. That's what makes trying to apply WP:UNDUE so difficult in this case. Hopefully that clears up my point to you and anyone else. Ryan Vesey 22:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of WP:UNDUE is that it is not neutral to provide a disproportionate amount of information about a non-notable aspect of a topic, that's what the fourth paragraph says, the one you seem to be overlooking each time. WP:UNDUE is very clear about this: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." You're trying over and over to say that WP:UNDUE is "not how much we write about a a specific subject within an article" when the policy itself says in no uncertain terms something completely to the contrary (depth of detail, quantity of text). When you're saying one thing, and the core content policy says another, I'm pretty sure we go with policy not your idea of what it should be. You're welcome to open a discussion at WP:NPOV to try to change this wording, but until then you're arguing against something the policy specificially says, and that policy that applies to all articles on Wikipedia, including this one. - Sudo Ghost 01:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is about providing information rather than about preventing it. I personaly have no use for the information in this article but I think someone else might. And the notability guidelines must not be misused as a means for censorship but as a protection against disinformation. The article is clearly no disinformation but one can have doubts about its value for oneself. However, that must not be the yardstick for notability. Therefore, I vote keep. CeesBakker (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That someone might find the information useful is not an indicator of encylopedic merit. When there are no third-party reliable sources, how can an article adhere to WP:NPOV? An article that cannot comply with a core content policy doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The information doesn't need to be a Wikipedia article to be useful information. - Sudo Ghost 14:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has nothing to do with censorship or protection against disinformation. I see no reason why anyone would want to censor this article. If people don't sell comics in a computer store, it doesn't mean that they are censoring them, just that they fall outside the scope of their store. Similarly, notability is one of the guidelines and policies defining what is inside the scope of Wikipedia, and what isn't (WP:NOT is another one). The current article has no obvious disinformation, and no need for any censoring, but still must meet WP:N. Your !vote doesn't make much sense in that regard, and doesn't seem to be in line with what notability is actually about. Fram (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Streets in Gibraltar. Article shows enough notability for Wikipedia. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't, not by a long shot. No notability has been shown in any capacity. If you think there are sources that the rest of us aren't aware of, please share them. - SudoGhost 16:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do the sources in Enzo Petito confer notability?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why your argument is not valid in this situation. Livewireo (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not looking at subject matter, I'm looking at sources. It is common to compile sources which only contain a brief mention to write articles. A lot of quite notable film actors who only had very minor roles don't have extensive coverage either, same goes for many roads in the US with little more than maps as sources. Why does Delaware Route 92 meet notability requirements based on nothing but maps. Where is the extensive coverage in reliable sources? Its almost as if you expect a book devoted to this road. I honestly don't think there is a single thing you could find on this road which would change you mind on it. From what I can see if has more coverage that Delaware Route 92 in publications and many other roads we have on here. You can give the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but when making a decision about content we must compare it with other articles. Half of the roads in the states have extremely poor coverage, next to nothing in books yet articles are built based on map observation.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter what exists on some other article, that's not going to somehow make this one more notable. If you think another article is insufficient, tag it or nominate it for deletion. However, that another article is also not notable doesn't somehow convey notability to this article. - Sudo Ghost 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Streets in Gibraltar, seems like the best way to present the information we have. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, changing to keep per recent improvements. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is now too much content for merge into an omnibus article. There have been past attempts to strip this article down to a discussion of today's physical road. That is wrong. Think Wall Street. There has been commentary on different events associated with this road for almost 200 years. It is notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing added since the start of this discussion is worth merging though. The names of some families living there now yields five "sources" (actually five instances of the same source of course), but none of it is of any encyclopedic value. We don't list the families living in a village, road, neighborhood, ... just because we can find the information in a census, telephone guide, or other similar list. Not every bit of information that exists needs to be in an article. Comparing it to Wall Street is rather over the top. Fram (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, both per my comments at the last AfD, and procedurally, as the DR admin noted "no consensus" for a proposal to "restart from scratch" at AfD, and then did so anyway. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Streets in Gibraltar. Verifiable and referenced geographical information. Deletion would be a disservice to our readers. WP:COMMONSENSE. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really dredged the depths of WP:ATA here: WP:ITEXISTS, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:VALINFO and, apparently, WP:EVERYTHING, all while ignoring WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and, most of all, WP:GNG. Don't see much WP:COMMONSENSE here. Try again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our opinions may differ, Dominus. Wikipedia is strong mainly because it is detailed and comprehensive. I don't think we should include everything, but I will always support preservation of well developed articles on geographical topics. It's just my opinion. Please, respect it. WP:COMMONSENSE is a part of WP:IAR, so you can take it as such (in this context). Btw, thanks for all the links. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the attention given to this article has served to improve it substantially with lots of interesting new content. Far too much to include in the Gibraltar streets list. Now even more "notable" than before. --Ipigott (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it was perfectly reasonable to bring the article to afd initially in its original state but it would be ludicrous to afd it now that it is both embiggenned and entirely cromulent. Oculi (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. Why are we pretending that this is anything other than the backlash to GibraltarpediA? The above comment with regard to Streets in Gibraltar, "which itself is not likely to remain on Wikipedia," and the personal attacks make that abundantly clear. Anne (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everything is about GibraltarpediA, you know. Editors like Colonel Warden aren't even a part of the project. Lies are lies, no matter who says or repeats them. Even in this AfD, Colonel Warden seems unable to use correct arguments, instead twisting reality to fit his opinion. Defending people or edits only because they are part of or in the scope of a project you like is not the way forward. A project should be here to improve Wikipedia, not to defend its articles and editors at all costs. The article is now at least based in reality, whereas it was largely a work of fiction during most of the previous AfD (not at the start!) and during the DRV. Fram (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since its unusual renomination the article has undergone improvements.[51] A lot of coverage has been found, of all the notable things happening on that road and the things along it. I wish we had a proper guideline for roads, bridges, canals, and whatnot, since that would save of us the trouble of these reoccurring debates. Dream Focus 10:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a proper guideline, and the article still fails to show any notability, being verifiable and being notable aren't the same, trivial mentions do not establish notability. - Sudo Ghost 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a better option than merging with Streets in Gibraltar. That article is far from complete, with a number of headings with limited content. If all street listed had similar coverage to this article, that article with be overburdened. The article is now aq substantiual one with a lot of references. There is quite sufficient centent to be worth its preservation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interesting article. Wikipedia has the notional purpose of being a universal repository of knowledge. The point of a universal repository is that it is all about articles that people find interesting to read or interestng to write. What's the point otherwise, except to allow pontificators to pontificate? The only point of Wikipedia censorship is to keep out the untrue and the unjustifiably dangerous. Too many articles are merged because someone wise has decided they don't see enough importance in a subject to keep it separate. Then the development of the article focusing on a different subject means that you look for something on Wikipedia you need to find out about and you're redirected to an article now contains zero information about the subject of your search.Opbeith (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ITSINTERESTING. It might be interesting (everything is interesting to someone), but it isn't notable. It is not censorship to remove topics that are inappropriate as encyclopedia articles. There are travel guide wikis that would be more appropriate for this sort of thing. - Sudo Ghost 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means "encyclopedic" which oftens goes hand in hand with "interesting historical knowledge". I agree with what Ipigott said about it now containing some quite interesting info and that great image of it in 1885 is interesting and certainly more encyclopedic than previously. I don't think you can say the article is completely devoid, those historical accounts are of some value from my perspective, but I understand that you disagree.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that expansion, Dr. Blofeld, though I still think it's sad that Wikipedia is unable to tolerate the concept of non-abusive simple interest as legitimate.Opbeith (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per many others above, and the fact that verifiable information such as this is a wonderful way of building an encyclopaedia; and as a bonus, possibly encouraging new editors to the project. As an aside, I have a dream that those fixated on a "delete" outcome start to realise how out-of-touch they (as well as some of the policies that act as their exoskeletons) have become. Perhaps someone could let me know the outcome of this, because unwatching is the best way I know of to avoid the cringeworthy nature of this action. GFHandel ♬ 19:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because anyone that doesn't agree with you just doesn't see the truth, do they? Notability isn't some arbitrary "I don't think this article is important enough" criteria, an article that lacks third-party reliable sources that can show this notability cannot properly adhere to WP:NPOV; being verifiable is required, but just because a basic mandatory thing like WP:V is fulfilled doesn't mean everything else can be thrown out of the window. If you believe that policies and guidelines are "out-of-touch", discuss it on the relevant talk pages. However, you cannot decide that a policy or guideline does not apply to an article. A phone book is also verifiable information; that alone is not a determination of what belongs on Wikipedia, and just because information exists doesn't mean Wikipedia is the place for it, especially when the article falls so critically short of any notability guideline. - Sudo Ghost 22:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good grief, all this vitriol over one little road. Don't we have better things to do with our time? I've read the previous AfD and this one, and I have to say there seem to be a few people here who are truly desperate to get this article deleted and are insulting anyone who disagrees with them. Why, I have no idea. However, I can see no good reason to delete an article on an historic road in an historic city. And let's all remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and guidelines are not set in stone - too many claims here (like the one just above) that they must be followed to the letter. Rubbish. That's why we have AfD discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are including me with those "few people", then I have not insulted everyone who disagrees with me; I have only highlighted the behaviour of a number of people who were so desperate to keep the article that they used the power of their imagination as arguments, inventing a completely fake history for the road, claming that source X said something which wasn't in that source at all, and/or misusing policy in rather blatant ways. If those people feel insulted, it is only because their own actions boomeranged against them. That you are seemingly more worried about people who have discussions within the Wikipedia rules, but who you disagree with, than about people you agree with but who feel that basic honesty and following policies don't apply when it is for the greater good (i.e. keeping an article on a road), is your problem. Fram (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I rest my case... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above. The article is certainly on par with the majority of other articles on roads considered as notable thus fullfilling our role as gazetteer. The extraordinary efford put into deleting this article is not due to its lack of notability, neither is it because of any harm that could come to wikipedia or the subject of the article (BLP) but because the article is associated with a wikiproject that some people want to erradicate. And as saind before WP:IDONTLIKEIT is still no deletion criteria. The effort expended against GibraldarpediA should really be put into creating other articles to balance the dominance on DYK. Agathoclea (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the effort put into deleting this article was because the subject appeared to be totally unnotable, and because a number of people then started fabricating notability for the subject by "accidentally" misreading source after source. If the article had been developed in a correct way (like it basically happens now, despite some minor dubious stuff and some severe source padding), we would naver have had a DRV, a second AfD, and a lot of editors who have lost whatever credibility they had before this episode. There are apparently a number of people who feel that it is perfectly allright to insert self-invented facts into articles if that helps in keeping them, and a number of people who fail to see any problem with that. Luckily, there are also a number of people (again from inside and outside the GibraltarpediA project) who play by the rules, e.g. adding (in this second AfD) information which was not available to me or most other commentators initially, but which seems to be reliable and correct. This second AfD is basically a model of how the first one should have gone, but which was made impossible by people like Colonel Warden, Prioryman, and (especially) Laura Hale. That Prioryman is also spearheading the GibraltarpediA project should be worrying to everyone involved with the project, Glam, or Wikipedia, but is not relevant to this article's fate. Fram (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Way too much sourced content to be merged into another article. The overall cumulative of coverage does qualify as significant and thus passing our notability guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The large number of sources in the article does not mean it's a notable topic, the sheer number of citations or external links has no effect on a subject's notability. A phone book would create "way too much sourced content to be merged", that doesn't mean it's notable or appropriate. The article falls short of any of the notability guidelines; trivial mentions do not combine to create non-trivial coverage. - SudoGhost 01:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those links are not to WP policies or even guidelines, but to bias essays. The actual guideline WP:NOTABILITY even specifies as to what is needed in sources depending on the depth of coverage - "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Not all the sources are in depth so there is a higher number of them that cover this topic at that altogether qualify as satisfactory. --Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The typical articles on roads on wikipedia look like Louisiana Highway 47...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Trivial mentions do not add up to significant coverage of a subject, otherwise enough phone book entries would warrant an article on anyone. The notability guideline you mention says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", not "Throw enough trivial mentions into an article and it will amount to significant coverage". The article is poorly sourced and does not meet any of the notability guidelines. The "keep" arguments apparently realize this, and choose to skirt around the issues by claiming it is important or useful information, yet ignoring the fact that the notability of the subject is questioned. - SudoGhost 18:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Like it or not, a large majority here disagrees with you. With all due respect, I suggest that it's time to stop flogging the dead horse and move on to something more productive. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, a large majority of single-purpose accountss would rather claim the usefulness of the article rather than discuss or even disagree with the lack of notability, skirting the actual problem presented. - Sudo Ghost 03:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Now you're really grasping at straws. A large majority of single-purpose accounts? Name one. And your blue links aren't getting you anywhere. Ryan Vesey 03:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody has shown a single way that the article is notable, which is kind of the entire point of the AfD discussion. You can say "notable" all day, but that's not how AfD is supposed to work. I've been asking for almost a month at the last AfD and the talk page for anyone to point out a single reference that would satisfy even the most basic guideline, and it's always dead silent on that front. Instead editors that believe the article belongs focus on "procedural" reasons or how useful the article is" as a reason to keep it. That doesn't cut it, and notability cannot be skirted around or asserted without a single explanation as to how this notability somehow exists. - Sudo Ghost 03:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not clear what the point of this AFD discussion is because the nomination is procedural; the nominator explicitly says that he's neutral; and no specific reason to delete has been provided. AFD is not concerned exclusively with notability and notability is not even a policy; it's just a guideline for which exceptions and variations are expected. Your focus upon the question of notability is therefore excessive. And, in any case, it appears that the consensus is that the place is actually notable and meets the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. Whether the coverage is trivial or not is essentially a matter of opinion rather than a mechanical rule. This is perhaps why notability is not a policy. Warden (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        However, short of anyone specifically asking me something, I'll shut up and let the closing admin decide. - Sudo Ghost 04:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promise?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: if even merge would be the first option considering the size of the article "Flat Bastion Road" appears to be a legitimate spinout article from Streets in Gibraltar. Cavarrone (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reposted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-267 (Kansas highway) (01:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)) While the comments specify U.S. roads, it seems possible that European roads are similar.
Roads attract significant attention in the U.S. One way that roads are used is to drive automobiles. The citizens want their government(s) to pay attention to public roads, and keep them in repair. Even small holes three- to six-inches deep become a matter of urgency. If a road has an 8-inch drop off the height of a stair step, emergency vehicles are dispatched to close the road and re-route traffic. The government keeps records and studies about road usage and traffic accidents. In order for citizens to know where to find public roads to drive on, an elaborate system of maps exists, so that maps are sold at most filling stations and large retailers. There are a variety of independent reliable publishers of maps that show the roads in detail. In the electronic age, maps have become even more widely disseminated in electronic devices, with computerized voices that can talk about public roads. The U.S. Post Office is another major institution in the U.S. that gives extensive attention to roads—the entire system of U.S. Mail uses a system called the "street address" that is tied to roads, which is a design that goes back more than a hundred years. Roads are often mentioned on evening news reports in the U.S. to describe where various events occurred. The point is that public roads in the U.S. will always easily pass WP:GNG. Another point, elements of the gazetteer are useful as short articles. Such articles need only be more than a statement of existence. The issue for Wikipedia with roads is WP:NOT.

Unscintillating (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I saw it was a Gibraltar article and immediately thought delete. I didn't find any sources, but one look at the article and there's no room to argue that the topic does not meet WP:GNG, particularly given the sourcing of the article and the age and size of the road (which means it is going to be written about alot overtime.) The article is well written, at least a "B" (and not the "C" it currently has). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Carravone. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 16:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley Starr[edit]

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

I believe she fails WP:AUTHOR. there is no significant peer recognition, coverage is limited, for example one source merely confirms she is a teacher. she only won emerging author category of a notable award. I would lean to keep if she has won other notable awards. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The thing is, she won one of Australia's most notable literary awards. Even though there's not much out there about her, that one fact is backed up in the ALIA source and would be enough to keep the article via WP:ANYBIO. I truly wish that there was more sourcing out there, as normally I'd say that this is far too light but the award is evidently considered notable, which pushes her to notable status. Otherwise I'd say delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do you have evidence of "one of Australia's most notable literary awards" so notable it is now discontinued due to the premier no longer supporting it! LibStar (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, notability doesn't go away because something is discontinued or no longer offered. If it was considered to be notable at one point in time, it's still notable now. It's listed in several news articles as well as in multiple books, even a travel book. Also, the awards aren't really discontinued and people are now holding them independently. ([52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]) Do I necessarily agree with the rules that someone who has received little coverage outside of her winning a major award merits an article to herself? Not really, but it is one of the things that allows an article to be kept.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

she won an "emerging" category. that's like winning a category of the Logies but not the Gold logie. LibStar (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl79, winner of major award. ~~The book "has been taught as a secondary text", one of the criteria of notability.~~ Added additional sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

where in WP:AUTHOR does it say "The book "has been taught as a secondary text" is a criterion for notability? LibStar (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, got author and book confused, stricken. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is indeed notable for reasons already mentioned but the book should have its own article too. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 22:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 18:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Catholic Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AfD for this article was closed as no consensus, since although no reliable and independent sources were found that gave substantial coverage of the church itself many felt that as a religious denomination the subject receives inherent notability. This is not the case, however, and without passing the GNG source wise this is not notable. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears notable only for the feud. dci | TALK 01:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that there is not really a deletion argument, but some nostalgia to recall the previous AfD, and roll the dice on the statistical variation of the participants and another closing admin. Since there is nothing new to discuss, my recollection is that I !voted already in the previous AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is a new AfD. The existence of a previous AfD (and a no consensus one at that) from a while ago is not a reason alone, please state your reasoning so that the closing administrator can take it into account. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you assuming the closing admin won't know how to read the previous AfD? It will also save you the trouble of replying, because you've already replied in the previous AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well in case they do, it should probably be noted that in your last post you provided two links, one to a simple directory of churches and another to this church's own website, claiming they were proof of notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is simply nothing out there that I could find that is significant or extensive coverage on this. Simply having a webpage, or even being a member of an organization of other affiliated churches is not enough to grant notability. It should also be noted that there are over 41,000 Christian denominations worldwide and the vast majority of them are like this, a single or small group, self-governing church that may play an important role in its community, but on a wikipedia level simply isn't notable. Additionally, the name 'Apostolic Catholic Church' is potentially misleaing (and if kept should be moved to Apostolic Catholic Church of Our Beloved Ingkong) to differentiate it from other Apostolic Catholic Churches, such as The Apostolic Catholic Church of Florida, the American Apostolic Catholic Church, Catholic Apolistic Church in North America, Apostolic Catholic Church of Canada, Milanese Apostolic Catholic Church, Catholic Apostolic National Church, (to name but a few) which are all different, and mostly non-notable, denominations. Ravendrop 07:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination statement is a misleading strawman - many of the arguments in the previous AfD were based on sources found, and weren't just attempts to have the church declared inherently notable. Plenty of sources popped up in the last AfD, including [62], [63] and [64], which are all still relevant 9 months later. Whether a denomination is inherently notable or not doesn't matter - this one passes the GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, I find it weird that, for a church that is supposedly "very well known" with "millions of adherents", the most substantive articles on it are about a crime that involved people who were members of the church, an article where it says that they support a specific law, and a decree from the catholic church saying it is not part of the catholic church.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really relevant, is it? There's no requirement within the GNG that a subject's coverage be proportional to its alleged local or global significance (i.e. no requirement that notability should be proportional to importance). The only requirement is the absolute, non-relative requirement that there is at least some significant coverage, which appears to be the case here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think most would disagree on that, though. On the crime article there is not really substantial information given about this church, and the article itself is about a particular crime. The letter is more debatable, although JohnChrysostom gives a pretty lengthy rationale in the last AfD on why a routine pastoral letter, which can cover fairly trivial issues, is hardly a proof of greater significant or notability for something. As for the last one discussing the Church's support for a bill, it's certainly a good source to use in the article but it's not the kind of coverage we'd consider substantial for an organization (and even if it is we'd want more than this bare minimum of sourcing).--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said before, a church which seriously claims one million members, even if it really doesn't have that many, is clearly notable. I can see no good reason for a further nomination. The nominator's statements smack of "I know best" syndrome ("This is not the case, however..."), which are best avoided in AfDs. Mind you, he made the same sweeping statements in the previous AfD, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. " A church which seriously claims one million members, even if it really doesn't have that many, is clearly notable"? Is a band that claims they've sold a million albums even if they haven't automatically notable? Is a politician who claims they received a million votes when they didn't notable? It's a weird standard, and certainly not one we decide notability by.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, we decide notability by opinion, not by rules. This has already been explained to you in the previous AfD when you tried to claim that the guidelines were rules set in stone instead of guidelines open to interpretation and mutability. Your examples are ridiculous, as people know how many albums have been sold or votes received: there are official figures to prove it. Nobody knows how many members this church has. If it was a tiny congregation that claimed a million members then clearly this would be ridiculous, but it's not. It's clearly large and well-known. It probably doesn't have a million members, but that doesn't mean it's non-notable, as it appears to make the claim seriously. Which means it's large enough to have a fair expectation of many believing its claims, even if the church itself knows they're overexaggerated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you point me to where it is claimed that they have a million followers? I've checked their webpage, the sources in the article and the other sources brought up in the other AfDs and see nothing that gives any estimate of follower, let alone a million followers. Looking at this page it seems that the church has only one temple and at least one home temple (not a devoted building, but run out of a private home), maybe more, but it is unclear. To me that makes the one million number seriously, seriously, seriously in doubt, with even a couple thousand being questionable. Are you sure you're not confusing it with other similarly named churches? Such as the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, which does, legitimately, claim one million plus adherents, or maybe as the movement as whole? Obviously, if there was any evidence what so ever (and I'm not counting an internal 'estimate' here, simply because those kinds of numbers are always questionable) that they had anywhere near one million adherents, it would influence me to reconsider my !vote (and at the same time expect more sources to be somewhere). Ravendrop 12:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was in the original article before it was chopped. Actually says they claim 5-8 million members. Unless that's a complete joke, they're hardly a small, insignificant church. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, unfortunately we can't go around using wikipedia articles as sources for the same article. We need a reliable source before we can even say that in the article, let alone use it as proof of notability. Also, the original article was apparently a self written piece by a member of the church with only unreliable primary sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The claim that this church has a million, or 5 to 8 million, members was removed because it had only been sourced to a dead link. In any event, I haven't seen any evidence that this church has as many as 10 parishes, much less the hundreds or thousands of parishes one would expect if it had 1 million to 8 million members. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fairly well known denomination of Christianity, and I am surprised that it was considered to be an article for deletion here. My surprise does indicate that I am strongly in favour of keeping this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure you're thinking of the Filipino one? If so, that's fine, but you need a source that it is fairly well known, we don't go by hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaksar (talk • contribs)
Keep as per above. I add other language links to the article. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately I had to delete all those. They seemed be be articles on other churches with the same name, but not this one. This one is specifically about the one in the Philippines.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather than deletion it could be merged to Religion_in_the_Philippines#Apostolic_Catholic_Church which already discusses it briefly. But I'm not arguing against keeping it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly would not be opposed to that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename -- This appears to be a denomination, in which case it is certainly notable. However, in view of ther potential confusion with simialrly named churches, it should be renamed, and I would suggest Apostolic Catholic Church (Phillippines), possibly Apostolic Catholic Church of Our Beloved Ingkong in in the heading of the infobox. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask where you're getting the idea that all denominations are inherently notable?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree with the suggestion to move this article to Apostolic Catholic Church of Our Beloved Ingkong because I can't find any evidence that the church's official name includes the phrase "Our Beloved Ingkong". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Religion in the Philippines. I have searched through all of the reliable secondary sources that have been proposed as supporting notability, including those in previous AfDs. Unfortunately, I think none of them rises to the level of significant coverage under WP:GNG. The article about a crime committed against a family member of the denomination's founder is not significant coverage of the church itself. The article about a group of churches supporting legislation is also not about the church itself; the ACC is merely one of many described as supporting the law. The third source -- a letter from a Roman Catholic priest warning of ACC members posing as RCs -- is in the form of a public notice or a warning, and is not in essence coverage, in my view. I have made my own search for sources and have so far been unable to find anything that approaches significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as is required under the guidelines. I have also attempted to search for sources in Tagalog, to no avail so far. I will happily change my mind if someone can provide examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. At the moment, however, I think the best course would be a redirect to Religion in the Philippines and a merging of content to that page, to the extent that it does not carry undue weight in the context of the article as it exists. I think this would be the best way to address the concerns of those who assert that the church has a significant presence while acknowledging that not enough secondary-source coverage exists for it to have its own article. --Batard0 (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]