< 23 April	25 April >

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amin Zarefar[edit]

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

Can't find any secondary coverage at all, under either variant of his name. Article seems to be mostly an essay about a related topic rather than a proper biography. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Easy call on this one. A search of Google shows only 424 results, and the top 10 show Facebook, another encyclopedia, and other useless stuff. CycloneGU (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete : per nom, unsourced BLP. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete unremarkable biography RadioFan (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Unclear what the claim for notability is. It might be for academic research in law based on the statement "Main topic of Zarefar's researchs is Public International Law,especially the situation of States in international law." However, I can find no indication that he would meet WP:ACADEMIC. As others have pointed out, he does not meet general notability guidelines either. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete unremarkable biography DrPhosphorus (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 22:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jean-Pierre Eckmann[edit]

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

Published academic but does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Coverage in secondary sources is limited. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Delete~~ pending eventual location of criteria meeting the guideline. I took a quick look in Google and found 362,000 results, but the earliest ones aren't very notable. CycloneGU (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Keep. GS cites are 1732, 643, 373 with h index = 26. Please will the nominator explain why he did not reveal this information in his nomination? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
What information are you referencing? I'm afraid I don't follow this. CycloneGU (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Click on the scholar link above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Strong keep. As well as the clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 demonstrated by Xxanthippe, he also passes #C3 by virtue of his membership in the Academia Europaea, which I've just added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep (replacing above opinion of mine) in light of this new information. CycloneGU (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Perhaps the nominator would like to withdraw so that the system is clogged up with one less AfD? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 15:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

L'As du Fallafel[edit]

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

Delete. Non notable article. Article is about a restaurant in Paris. One source used is a travel article for the NYT, the other is a travel guide where a "Margie Rynn" says its the best falafel in Paris. Another source says its Lenny Kravitz favorite restaurant. Other info in the article is even more non notable. I fail to see any notability here at all. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Keep. Clearly notable given all the sources (didn't even delve into French ones). Given your hatred of Jewish Middle Eastern cuisine (as well documented) Supreme, you are clearly the wrong person to be going about this. But thanks for giving another indication of your disgusting battleground behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. Bazillions of restaurants exist in the world - why does this one specifically pass WP:GNG. While I am sure it is a great restaurant, and possibly worthy of including in a list of restaurants in Paris, it is not worthy it's own article. Also WP:NOTTRAVEL --Errant ^(chat!) 23:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - The article does show many signs of notability however does require a heap load of cleanup which I am more than willing to complete. I am well aware that the references do need work. On an off-topic note, If you had ate there Supreme, you would be nominating the article for community consideration here at AfD.maucho eagle 23:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep- ~~Non-trivial or in-depth c~~Coverage in English, Chinese, Danish, French, and Hebrew, spanning 8 years on three continents including the three most populous American states of California, New York, and Texas; clearly meets ~~WP:N,~~ WP:GNG, and WP:RS. Dru of Id (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the: "Non-trivial or in-depth coverage in English, Chinese, Danish, French, and Hebrew, spanning 8 years on three continents" you are referring to? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies; if there is non-trivial or in-depth coverage of the business, it's in the paywall articles, offline, or with the business name translated; I've gone back and read each "news" result above, plus all with "ace of falafel", running every non-English article through google translate - those that are in-depth are about something else. Breadth of mentions cited above still implies WP:GNG, with sufficient coverage elsewhere (including the possibility of it being behind those paywalls, although I think that less likely, now). Dru of Id (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - One of the inherent issues facing this article, and many like it, is that with more and more news & travel journals putting their content online, some might consider that the threshold of WP:RS is being lowered; That said, WP:RS and WP:GNG seem to be satisfied, although it could stand to be improved. A quick google search brings up a number of mentions, ranging from CNN and the New York Times to "foodie" related websites and blogs. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 23:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Hmmm, a Paris restaurant reviewed in the New York Times and their are doubts about notability? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The coverage I'm seeing seems broad enough to indicate notability; The point about the NYT review is particularly telling. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Lenny Kravitz's favorite restaurant! Now seriously, there IS enough significant coverage about it so it passes GNG. WP:NOTTRAVEL surely doesn't apply here, dear Administrator, user:ErrantX. And to your question, "why does this one specifically pass WP:GNG." I answer: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" Dragquennom (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - The reviews by extremely reliable sources themselves satisfy WP:GNG. The French sources even more so.--Oakshade (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hicks Hall[edit]

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

Non-notable place. Does not have multiple non-trivial coverage. Thisbites (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. This entry has been added as an abuse of process due to my listing one of user Thisbites entries for deletion.--Dmol (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Tit for tat for a deletion nomination of California Shuttle Bus by the author of this piece, it would seem. I don't think either of these nominations make for a very productive use of time, frankly. If something is undersourced, flag it for more sources and move along. This article has been standing since 2005, about a multiple-centuries-old building. It's fair to assume that sufficient sources are out there, even if they're not presently showing. Suggestion: there's a big and growing backlog at New Pages, help clean that up instead of ripping up the carpeting at Wikipedia... Carrite (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment please assume good faith, I just took a look at this users contributions and came across this article and it came under my scrutiny. I then went on to comment on several others up for AfD. This article is not a historic landmark and there does not seem to be anything making it famous or special. This is regardless of California Shuttle Bus. I am not opposed to a merge with some other article like Clerkenwell but there are tons of buildings this old in London, this one is unremarkable. Just click on the sources links at the top and you will see that there are no sources. If sources are found, by all means keep it here. I could not find any however. Any perceived "retaliation" is irrelevant to the deletion. I simply make a habit of checking out other user's contributions and making edits, improvements, copyedits, taggings, or even AfDs, I might also say this article does not meet the draconian application of speedy/AfD the accusing user has applied the article that I created and he should be a bit fair here. The fact that this article has been around since 2005 is also not a measurement used for notability for these debates.Thisbites (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - in it's time it was quite notable, being used a mileage marker for London, and hosting notable trials[1]. It was an important, if not particularly loved building for 170 years[2]. Seaphoto^Talk 02:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The suggestion that sources cannot be found is blatantly false. See From Hicks's Hall to Campden House, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Looks to be notable. As to Thisbites' "there are tons of buildings this old in London, this one is unremarkable", it would undoubtedly be a listed building if it still existed, if only due to its age (most pre-1840 buildings are listed as a matter of course), and we generally keep articles on listed buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Non admin closure... article was speedily deleted during nomination process. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sufficiating[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Dictionary definition of non-notable neologism. Unencyclopedic as per WP:NOT#DICDEF. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that the sources cited are not enough to establish notability for this neologism. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enoughism[edit]

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

Neologism that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong keep There are piles and piles of Google Books results for starters. When you looked over them, what was found lacking? ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 21:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are only two pages of results (not piles and piles), half of which are constructions like "good-enoughism", rather than referring to Naish's theory. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Imagine those two pages of results were actually books (such things do exist) and were stacked against a wall. I could go on with this metaphor, or you could stop making dumb semantic points and accept that while the article may not be well-written, plenty of sources exist for the concept. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And 5 hits here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "books stacked against a wall" is not a useful metaphor because it doesn't account for whether the coverage in the books is significant. Can we imagine words stacked against a wall? Because that would be a very small pile - see, for instance, Ferraris for All, in which "enoughism" is mentioned in a list of "related terms" and that's all. (Also, as Sarek notes, almost none of the hits you're getting are actually in reference to this concept. One has to look beyond the numerical result and see if the coverage actually attests notability for the subject of the article.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely. So please feel free to link to any three of the Google Books results and explain how they don't constitute significant coverage. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 08:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I already explained it above, but...
http://books.google.com/books?id=VIQB82XN8_IC&pg=PR11&dq=%22Enoughism%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=nUzrbV_68asC&pg=PA326&dq=%22Enoughism%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=79f6AQ6IpsQC&pg=PA140&dq=%22Enoughism%22

And that was just in the first 8 links. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep poorly written and new topic but it is not a neologism if it has significant coverage that concerns this topic primarily.Thisbites (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete insufficient evidence of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete We already have standard English words for the concept such as satiety and repletion. And if we want a modish neologism, there's downshifting, which appears in the OED, unlike enoughism. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete From the article itself: "The term does not appear to extend beyond the ideas of anti-consumerism and simple living, but perhaps has the advantage of being shorter." So therefore, add in a blurb in anti-consumerism about Enoughism then delete this repetitive article. It's already barely long enough to be its own article, and could be better explained in the context of the bigger concept of anti-consumerism. Falconerd (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: non-notable, lack of coverage in RS --Reference Desker (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - while we have kept articles on such many newly created 20th Century words that have been describing things for a while (such as chaos, sisu, velleity, etc.) we have deleted most neologisms. In my four years here, a lot of words younger than a decade have been deleted. Don't blame me; I am an inclusionist. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism of sorts. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maya Lahan[edit]

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

Not one of the references in this article constitutes third-party significant coverage of this non-notable character. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 17:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: No surprise from the user who put this to GA, but I really disagree with this. There is adequate coverage behind the development of the character (casting, statements from portraying actor, statements from co-stars) And I wouldn't go so far as saying "non-notable" either, she is. Just what does "not one of the references in this article constitutes third-party significant coverage" mean? Digital Spy, Daily Mirror, The Guardian. I use these sources quite a lot, and I haven't had any trouble with them. -- Matthew RD 17:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You appear to misunderstand the significance of 'significant' in that quote from my comment above. Randomly picked, this 'source' doesn't contain significant coverage. This 'source' contains a very basic Q&A about her effect on Lucas' character – not particularly focussed on her at all. Again, I don't consider that significant. You get the picture. ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 17:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources might not mostly be focused on the character, but that doesn not mean it's not worthy of inclusion, is it? Besides, she's only a background character. -- Matthew RD 18:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources might not mostly be focused on the character, but that doesn not mean it's not worthy of inclusion, is it? If it's not focussed on the character then it's quite unlikely to be the required level of "significant coverage."
Besides, she's only a background character. You're right there. But I can't quite find the section of Wikipedia:Notability which says, "Articles about background characters have a lower notability threshold than for normal characters." Could you quote it for me? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 18:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not going to continue arguing this. Obviously everything I say you will reply and deconstruct everything I just said, but that doesn't mean I change my vote to delete or merge, it means I still want the article kept, and the least I expected you to do is acknowledge that there is going to be the odd one who disagrees if the discussion ends up going your way and it gets merged. No need to go to my talk page to say you replied, I got this discussion on my watchlist. -- Matthew RD 18:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not going to continue arguing this. Thanks for the notification, I won't bother watching out for your reply to this then. Obviously everything I say you will reply and deconstruct everything I just said... That's more or less to be expected in a debate. That doesn't mean I change my vote... If you refuse to argue your case further even in the face of reasoned criticism then that is your decision, though I would not have thought that it was an advisable one. ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The information in the article comes almost wholly from primary sources (episodes of the television show), and the other sources devote the space of two to three lines to the character during interviews which are primarily about the real persons (actors, actresses) involved in making the show and their personal lives. Per WP:GNG significant coverage consists of more than a trivial mention. We would need secondary sources that focus on the character, and these don't exist independent of the subject. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As an Inclusionist, I strongly believe the article should not be deleted. Clearly a lot of time has been spent on finding reliable sources. I feel the article would help viewers and non-viewers alike understand her character - and the series - better. There are a number of other minor characters, such as in Lost, that merit their own articles. I see no strong reason why this shouldn't either. Ruby2010 comment! 04:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fairly poor argument. As an Inclusionist, I strongly believe the article should not be deleted. WP:NOREASON. Clearly a lot of time has been spent... WP:MERCY. I feel the article would help viewers... WP:ITSUSEFUL. There are a number of other minor characters that merit their own articles... WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
I'm actually quite impressed that you've managed to formulate a four-point "keep" comment, where each point is a classic example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. But no matter how impressed I am, it doesn't move the discussion further along. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 08:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep – A subject does not require third party sources to be considered a notable topic, secondary sources are enough to establish that, of which there are a number of here. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A subject does not require third party sources to be considered a notable topic... Hmmm, I wonder why the first sentence of Wikipedia:Notability says, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." I guess we should correct it? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 09:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps, as the rest of the page doesn't even mention third party sources but instead says "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." and "• "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." This article has secondary sources and thus satisfied WP:GNG, if you believe it should not have a separate article but instead be merged with another article, then a merge discussion would be appropriate. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I don't believe it should be merged with another article, I believe it should be deleted, as is quite clear from the fact that I have initiated a deletion discussion for it. As Chromancer (talk · contribs) correctly points out, "The information in the article comes almost wholly from primary sources (episodes of the television show), and the other sources devote the space of two to three lines to the character," and that does not constitute the addressing of the subject directly in detail which is required by WP:GNG. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 10:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Almost wholly" is quite the overstatement, 'a third' would be more correct. A lot perhaps, but I believe there are enough other references that cover the subject. just the first reference I clicked was entirely about her character. You left out the second part of that sentence which defines its meaning: "so no original research is needed to extract the content." which isn't the case, meaning that the sources discuss the subject in sufficient detail. If no OR is needed to extract the content from the source then it discusses it in sufficient detail. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you meant tertiary sources, but this is different of third-party sources. Tertiary sources, those from encyclopedias for example, are indeed not required; notability is established by third-party sources, sources independent of the subject (therefore a fortiori not primary, and in general secondary). Cenarium (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Well-referenced fictional character entry. I wish all fictional character articles looked at least this good. I would consider deletion if it were a non-notable BLP, but this article has enough marginal third-party references to pass as a fictional character. Cool Hand Luke 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to American Idiot (musical). (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 12:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

American Idiot (movie)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD rationale was "WP:NFF: Filming has not begun, the project is only in 'initial negotiations'." This is still the case. No reason given for PROD removal. IllaZilla (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Far from beginning principal photography, as stated as would be needed in the guideline, the article itself states that no actors have even been named for consideration in the picture. This one is textbook. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 18:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to American Idiot (musical) under the new header "film adaptation." Really, these kinds of article issues should never come to AFD. postdlf (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge, I strongly agree with User:Postdlf that these sort of AFDs are a waste of everybody's time and disc space(!) Just be bold and merge the content into the musical article, and then this can be resurrected when/if more information is available. Bob talk 19:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This content already exists in the musical article. I'd redirect it if there wasn't already an AfD. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 21:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It exists in the musical article only because Bob merged it there after commenting in this AFD. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, yeah, I meant to make a note about doing that. Bob talk 22:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Endorse Bob's merge, and speedy close the AfD so we can effect the redirect. (Deletion is not a legitimate option here since the edit history needs to be kept.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 500 home run club. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

600 home run club and 700 home run club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated these pages for deletion last year and I'd like to try again, because it was a split decision and I didn't make the most convincing argument. Last time, I said "nobody ever talks about a 600 or 700 home run club." I was proven wrong with WP:GHITS, but that still doesn't make "600" or "700" home run clubs notable enough to exist on their own. The 500 home run club remains the well known marker. Any detail on 600+ or 700+ should be kept the 500 home run club article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - So you are renominating even though it was closed as a keep and nothing substantial changed to make the topic more likely to be deleted except you want to change your argumentation? I would argue that this might qualify for a procedural close of some variety, but I don't know policies enough. I'll let someone else make that call. matt91486 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think WP:NOTAGAIN may be what you're looking for? ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 18:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While certainly not what I was thinking of, it's entirely appropriate to respond with! matt91486 (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response Your criticism is valid, but in this case, I think my renominating this article is legit. The deletion was avoided in large respect due to my poor argument being shot down, but not as much because the pages themselves proved notable. Also, it's been nine months since that AfD (not like I'm renominating it a week or two later) and consensus can change. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both for want of significant coverage of the concept in third-party reliable sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 18:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect both to 500 home run club, a featured list that covers the topic already. The only thing that changed between the articles is the #s, and people with clue will be able to determine who is in what club(s). Tavix | Talk 20:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Very notable topic discussed empirically in the press albeit the sports section for about a century, topic of historical significance that people would expect to find in en encyclopedia and let's not forget even sport's writers have won pultizers. {Unsigned vote by Thisbites}
Please show us some of these reliable sources you're talking about (they don't have to be Pulitzer Prize winners) because these articles don't contain any sources that indicate why 600 and/or 700 should be considered such a milestone. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect - I think this is an acceptable result. What happens someday if we have two players in the 800 home run club? Will someone argue for a separate article for two people? I think 500 is suitable for a threshold from which all others can be added at higher thresholds. CycloneGU (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to 500 home run club on the basis that these constitute a content fork. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as noted. I believe that discussing the various levels may also enable the main article to be more interesting. Ma^t_chups 17:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect both to 500 home run club. Per WP:NOT#STATS, the article does not " contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Without such limitations, there are hundreds to thousands of lists that could be created that while factually correct, are not notable. Sources of the article on both clubs have not been found that discuss indepth the club as a whole, and need to go beyond coverage of the milestone by an individual player. This fails the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. —Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect This list doesn't tell us anything the 500 HR club tells us. One day it may be notable, but right now it isn't. Arnabdas (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect both to 500 home run club. I am not sure that the 600 or 700 home run clubs are non-notable, but I agree that any information about them is better included in the 500 home run club article. Rlendog (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as above. Should the target article be renamed to 500 and over club? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Although there were several merge !votes, there was no consensus to delete this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Silence (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced pile of speculation and original research without the vaguest hint of notability. I am really shocked to find a sci-fi-related article in this sort of state...
Meanwhile, SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) deleted the PROD-tag because the article "can easily be sourced" – not that they have done so, and I anyway dispute that the drivelly original research contained within can be adequately referenced. Furthermore, Sarek 'forgot' to address the issue of notability, also 'forgetting' to be responsible and add an ((unreferenced)) tag. How unfortunate. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 17:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as notable. Some evidence already, as the fictional adversaries in the current story arc of a very popular television series, it seems reasonable to suppose that further evidence of notability will be forthcoming. The current state of the article is not an argument. Comments on the perceived inadequacies of other editors do not constitute deletion arguments. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Classic fallacious argument – please point me towards third-party reliable sources containing significant coverage of this subject. ╟─Treasury Tag►collectorate─╢ 17:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added one to the article just before posting my comment. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That article doesn't even contain the words "Silent" or "Silence" – what's the matter with you? The fact that the BBC isn't a third party to, erm, the BBC, is quite another issue. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article (added as a "reference") doesn't contain significant coverage either; one of its few mentions of them describes how they "were almost an aside to this episode." ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 18:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nonetheless they are referred to. BBC News is generally regarded as a reliable source. Please stop the personal comments right now. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read WP:GNG again. There must be significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Just because they are "referenced" doesn't mean there is significant coverage. Just because BBC News is a reliable source doesn't mean it is third party. This really isn't rocket science. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 18:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - They're the Big Bad of the 6th Season and are named as the Silence in the ending credits.--S G Command 17:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:NOTINHERITED form the basis of your argument. In what way do these creatures meet the notability threshold? Where is the significant coverage in third-party reliable sources? Where? Link to it. Provide references. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You obviously have something against this article!!!--S G Command 18:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well at least you don't. ╟─Treasury Tag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 18:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're central to this seasons MythArc--S G Command 18:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to propose the policy, Wikipedia:Doctor Who monsters are to be considered notable if they're central to the current seasons [sic] MythArc then go ahead. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What TT is saying, rather indirectly, is that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions suggests that subjective importance (or unimportance) is not a useful argument in deletion discussions. It's a very useful essay, more people should read it. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case, I do apologise!!!--S G Command 21:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Here's The Guardian[3] and The Daily Mail[4]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not "significant coverage." I could count the words of that referring to the Silence on the fingers of one toe. The Daily Mail is similarly scratching-the-surface-but-not-being-significant. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I presume "fingers of one toe" is a periphrasis for "zero"? That count seems to be wrong. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it was a slightly sarcastic and tremendously humourous version of the common idiom, "...on the fingers of one hand." ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, as the two sources above indicate, it is now notable as part of the franchise and the new major villain for the series. The Daily Mail article seems to deal almost exclusively with the new creature. He iro 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is now notable as part of the franchise and the new major villain for the series. I linked to WP:NOTINHERITED above. Why didn't you click that link? You may have found it instructive. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 19:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment—this is yet another 'reference' which contains utterly insignificant coverage: literally the only mention of them is, "I think The Silence are one of the scariest monsters. I love that they've been working since the dawn of time to make The Doctor come unstuck," he said. It's pathetic. ╟─Treasury Tag►collectorate─╢ 19:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a citation verifying an assertion that was already in the article. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But it does nothing to advance the subject's notability, which was my point. ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 19:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't about notability, which was mine. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, such vehemence over a Dr. Who article. If the Daily Mail does an entire article about the subject, clearly seems notable. Try arguing without the invective, might have a better chance, although this seems to heading for snow close territory if you ask me.He iro 19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, such vehemence over a Dr. Who article. Not helpful. If the Daily Mail does an entire article about the subject, clearly seems notable. It didn't look to me as if the entire article was about them. It was quite wide-ranging. Try arguing without the invective. Try not making fallacious arguments thus alleviating the necessity for me to employ rhetorical devices. This seems to heading for snow close territory – do a Ctrl+F for MythArc and tell me once again that this should be snow-closed. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether or not you choose to call them "rhetorical devices", some of your comments are personal attacks which are disruptive to the discussion. Please stop. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, your vehemence and rhetorical devices are not helpful. As for Daily Mail article, the first 1/2 or so of the text is almost exclusively about the Silence, the remainder is a general overview of the Drs past adversaries in general and and their effect on the public, i.e. the scariness. With the general mentions in the other sources so far, still clearly seem notable. He iro
The remainder [of the article] is a general overview of the Drs past adversaries in general – so why did you say that the Daily Mail did "an entire article about the subject" then? ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 20:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage exists, and the series is of sufficient interest and importance, to make the subject worthy of note here, although a merge to Doctor Who (series 6) may be in order until there's more on which to base an article.--Michig (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you could list which particular sources you feel that enough coverage exists? (And I wouldn't object hugely to a merge if needs must.) ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 20:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep- sufficient coverage that the GNG is met. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you could list which particular sources you feel that enough coverage exists? ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 20:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you could read that section you linked to again and explain to the rest of us why all of the sources so far provided do not meet the GNG?He iro
I have made eighteen comments on this page explaining why the various sources do not provide adequate coverage. The sources must "address the subject directly in detail." One-sentence throwaway lines such as, "zomg their so scaree innit," which is more or less the sole extent of this news article – they just don't cut it. The other stuff provided thus far is equally dismal, as I have explained point-by-point above. I suggest you read over what I've written; it's gripping stuff. ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So this from the article mentined above:

“

[extended copyright violation redacted] The Daily Mail[5]

”

is just a small throw away line? Please, getting cold in here? Whats that white stuff? He iro 21:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think that that constitutes enough "significant coverage," and that it "addresses the subject directly in detail," thus forming the basis for an article, then I don't agree with you, no. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 21:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whats wrong, that big block of text in quotes linked to the article get in the way of your train of thought? He iro 22:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, admittedly the large label I put which read [extended copyright violation redacted] did rather rely on its recipient being literate in order to be effective. And I can't think of any other explanation for you asking the above question if you'd read it. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 22:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats ok, he who shouts loudest must have the winning argument. Just look how many agree with you so far. He iro 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well-crafted. Have you ever considered going into the comedy business? Or into the inserting-completely-pointless-and-utterly-irrelevant-bickering-disruptively-into-deletion-discussions business? ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't want your job, thanks. He iro 22:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't want your face thanks. (I don't know which of us is going to get reported to ANI first but it's quite a stimulating guessing-game!) ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 22:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who knows, guesses are for grabs. Maybe I should go do something productive for the day and let you get back to arguing with the others here for awhile.He iro 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, because Wikiquette alerts is known for inciting swift, decisive action in the same way that ANI is... oh wait a minute... ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 22:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep slightly premature creation, but seeing as it's there it can be improved and expanded as the series goes on. U-Mos (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh come on, I know you understand WP:NOTE. 'Premature' and 'can be improved' are neither here nor there. Does it have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources? ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 21:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me put it a better way. I don't think it needed to be created quite yet. But what is there has been talked about (in a pre-broadcast "they're the scariest monsters EVER" sort of way) in numerous third-party sources. And it won't be long before there's a lot more to say and source. U-Mos (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, maybe you don't understand WP:NOTE. If an article is not notable, it should be deleted. If it subsequently becomes notable, it can always be recreated. Living somewhere in the UK, right now, is a 4-year-old who will one day become Prime Minister. They'll be notable then. So let's create the article now! Or not. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 21:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is notable now. What part of WP:NOTE is it failing exactly? U-Mos (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is completely beyond me why people don't read the discussion rather than asking questions which could obviously be answered if they read the discussion. (Hint—read the discussion.) ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have. You may not consider the coverage significant, but I and apparently a lot of other people here do. U-Mos (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So your question immediately above was pointless then? ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 22:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I just slightly misunderstood your comments. U-Mos (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment just a reminder from WP:NRVE: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is admittedly a fair-ish point, but in the case of an ongoing popular TV show, the vast majority of coverage will be online and accessible easily, and if the above is the result of a Google search then it's a pretty sorry lot. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 21:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So do you want to keep arguing or get this solved?[edit]

I agree that Treasury may not have had the most perfect attitude in his comments here, but you can easily solve the whole debate by moving the small amount of content into the article 'List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens‎'. Notability no longer matters, because the entire article is what requires notability, not sections. I did try to go ahead and do this (it was reverted...twice), but if all of you would rather argue longer, we can just have a longer argument...... thoughts? -- Avanu (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw this deletion nomination if the article is redirected as Avanu suggests. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 22:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd accept a re-direct for the time being. U-Mos (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens, not notable. Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG (the first reference doesn't count towards notability). –anemone projectors– 00:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep, do not merge. Clearly notable -- there's enough to meet the GNG now, and it will only keep flowing in over the next weeks/months. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, A new race of aliens of Doctor Who, while it may be a bit of crystal balling, I'm pretty sure with every other race it will soon have toys in the shop and people dressing as them for Halloween. Mathewignash (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're another one of these people who haven't read WP:GNG. Allow me to quote two versions, and you can guess which one is the real text: "If a topic is something that is available in shops, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list," and, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Which is the genuine notability standard? ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 08:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens, where it can be worked on and split off (following discussion) when it looks like notability can be demonstrated. One thing to do that should also be included there is "Silence will fall", a prediction that ran through the previous series but is clearly designed to be resolved here. I imagine there will be more sources that can be dug up to track that too. (Emperor (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Merge for now. While everyone seems to believe that these characters are going to be huge, at present they have appeared in ONE EPISODE with some ambiguous mentions in the previous season. If they become a major race, like the Daleks, etc. that are notable enough to have their own page, then they will get their own page THEN. Doing so now is premature. JRP (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - you know that if we merge it we will be keeping it too... so the comments for 'Keep' don't really argue against merging it too. -- Avanu (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then let me qualify my keep above to include do not merge, notability has been established above and will only increase from here. He iro 02:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as is per Sarek, Heiro. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment—this editor has already 'voted' above. ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 08:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for reminding me of that. Since this appears to be a new question, namely keep vs merge, as opposed to the keep vs delete discussion above, I was indicating that my "keep" was a "keep as is" rather than a "keep or merge" !vote. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~A move prompted no doubt by the same reasoning as my clarification above, that a user who appeared to be not happy with the number of keeps decided they might also qualify as a merge vote.~~ He iro 09:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's actually a fairly standard convention on AfD discussions that those favouring 'keep' are usually not as averse to a merge as to deletion. It's not just "a user who appeared to be not happy with the number of keeps" making a lone decision, so please don't allege that sort of thing. ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 09:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is common practice to take my !vote as something other than what I stated it to be? That's convenient. As for the alleged personal attack, if it is seen as such, I apologize and strike through it. I did not mean to succumb to the general WP:BATTLEfield mentality creeping into this page. I'll retire from the page, you win. Taking it off my watchlist. He iro 09:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's a common (and completely reasonable) convention to assume that people who want the article kept would, as a second preference, have it merged rather than deleted. This should be obvious to a semi-lobotomised chimpanzee, let alone to somebody of your intelligence. If you wish to withdraw from the discussion then I certainly won't try to persuade you otherwise. ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 10:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can probably make such points without having to mention those poor semi-lobotomised chimpanzees. They don't even get the benefit of a completed lobotomy. And since I've had several conversations with such creatures, I really can say this sort of stuff isn't that obvious to them (of course, they continually called me names and force fed me mashed bananas, but that might have just been them being sociable). -- Avanu (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with the ~~Doctor Who~~ List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens article per JRP and several others above. There's simply not enough "quality" content there at this time for a stand-alone article. If/When it's been written to a higher level of quality with respective references to reliable resources then it could be moved back out to article space. (try the article incubator or work on it in user space.) I also wouldn't be opposed to leaving a redirect behind in the merge wake. Comment to a few folks up above who are getting so snippy about the whole thing ... Knock it off, ~~NOW~~ please. We're here to improve the project, this type of bickering should be beneath the users here. Try working together rather than wasting time butting heads. Thank you. — Ched : ? 07:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to List of... - while they may yet be important and there may be much to come at the moment we have a bit of a news spike going on. So far very little is yet known (the BBC website only gives them a few paragraphs on the Silence) and excluding the unsourced speculation in this article leaves very little of quality. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The subject looks like it meets the WP:GNG, when you look at sources like this, this, and this, which are all exclusively about the Silence. Silver seren^C 09:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Daily Mail article is, as you must be aware having read the whole discussion above, not exclusively about the Silence. Hence the Daleks etc. The other two are extremely short pieces with the actors basically saying, "im scared of thes gr8 monstrs lmfao," over two or three one-sentence paragraphs, which I politely suggest doesn't count as "directly addressing the subject in detail" at all. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 09:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The GNG neither 1) requires wholly-dedicated articles to the subject, only that the secondary sources talk about the topic in depth and not just in passing: the Daily Mail article clearly qualifies as one possible secondary source (mind you , the GNG requires multiple sources, so this one source alone won't cut it, but no way is it invalidated as a source - it describes inspiration and production aspects of the creatures) and 2) is not an objective measure; if the consensus believes it to be notable based on a two-line mention in a review despite all evidence to the contrary, the article should be kept. That's why we have AFD, to challenge subjectively, not objectively. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The GNG neither 1) requires wholly-dedicated articles to the subject. I hope you're not suggesting that I made this claim. Silver seren (talk · contribs) said that the article was solely about the Silence. I pointed out that this was not true. I never said that this automatically barred it from being significant coverage. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 13:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, you're correct, but at the same time you sounded dismissive of it. As long as its agreed its one valid secondary source for the GNG, that's the important part. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: The Silence will eventually become a full article as the revived Series 6 goes forth. Let's clean it up and let time pass. The article will evolve. There is no need to delete this only to have to create a new one in 4 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Er yes there is, like if it doesn't currently meet our general notability guideline. ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 09:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The sources provided demonstrate notability. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy in which we strive to keep such sourced content. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As being a notable major story arc beyond just a listable alien (if they are aliens). Collect (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Whilst the GNG is met by third party sources about them may be discussing the context of all Dr Who monsters this is simply because the details about them are limited at the moment. As the episodes progress and more detail is revealed we can presume that like all major story arcs and aliens of the series there will be substantial reliable sourcing about them. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"We can presume" – perhaps you could point me to the section of WP:GNG which has provision for letting articles stand on the basis that they'll probably maybe become notable in the future? ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 13:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never claimed it would "become notable in the future" I claimed that it already met the GNG as they are the main subject on the few sources that already exist and I also claimed that the we can presume that further sources will be found to improve the article. In fact to extend that - I expect that because facts are so few at the moment that substantial sources to improve the article will exist after 7pm (BST) on Saturday and since this AFD won't close until at least 5pm (UTC) on Sunday any arguments made on notability now will need to be re assessed after that time making the whole AfD at this time a little pointy. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominating this article for deletion was in no way POINTy, and with that false allegation I am not prepared to respond to the rest of your (pretty poor) comment above. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 20:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you saying that you weren't aware that coverage of the subject would increase over the period of the AfD given that a second episode covering subject and giving sources more detail to work with would occur within 6 days of the start of the AfD? Or are you saying that you were not aware that as a subject which was unfolding and subject to substantial change over a (relatively) short period of time it could reasonably be covered under WP:BREAKING (as both the unveiling of the new enemy and the start of the new series are being treated as a breaking event by the press) and should have followed the recommendation to " delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary" (in this case a 9 or 10 day delay seems appropriate)? If you weren't aware of either of these, then I would retract the claim of pointedness but it seems highly unlikely for someone who specifically records Doctor Who episodes as a field they concentrate their editing in that you wouldn't at least be aware of the first. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you think that it is a WP:POINT violation to nominate an article for deletion even if it is possible that the reason for deletion may be alleviated before the scheduled end of the discussion, then you are simply wrong, and that is all there is to it. ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you are simply wrong, and that is all there is to it. - Of course, I must have missed the policy that says "For the avoidance of doubt, TreasuryTag's interpretation of Policy always overrides that of any other editor or consensus of editors...." Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - they are only named on the BBC website but discussed as plot elements elsewhere. I'll pay that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ECx1)Merge & Redirect - Yeah, it's great if we have information in the future about this Monster series, but for the time being we don't. It's likeley that we'll have info in the future, so merge the current content to the "List of Aliens (Doctor Who)" and redirect the article. Hasteur (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge & redirect as per the above at this time, with an option to expand later as needed. umrguy 42 14:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this a new question, then I vote for a Strong Keep--S G Command 16:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment to closing admin—this editor has already 'voted' above. Comment to above editor—you probably ought to read WP:NOREASON and WP:VOTE soon-ish. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 16:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a result of Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus' comments above, I was also changing my vote to Keep rather than Merge -- S G Command
You still haven't read WP:VOTE I see? ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 16:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still doesn't change my Vote-S G Command
*sigh* Whatever. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll read 'em when I have some time, OK?--S G Command 17:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge as current notability has not been demonstrated. No prejudice against reinstating it if and when decent sources appear. Currently does not meet GNG. --John (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge Until and unless it becomes more notable. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment- If we're talking merge, it would make sense (at least to me) to close the AFD. Merge discussions can be hashed out on the talk page, after all. If not, an oppose merge, there's enough there for a stand-alone article even now, and there will only be more as the series progresses. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I think enough 3rd party sources have been satisfy their notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge at least for now. Keep as IAR on CRYSTAL/GNG. There are short RS mentions, but the whole RS mentions are almost news WP:EVENT. Many fictional works have alien races, this one only got the spotlight as being introduced in the new season of a popular series. WP:WAF. ~~If and when material from real-world perspective appears (development, reception, etc.), then split off~~. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't IAR core content policies without more explanation than just saying 'IAR' and leaving it to the imagination. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 11:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did elaborate below. Ordinarily, I would say merge. But, since the topic will receive more coverage (WP:CRYSTAL) and will have more than short mentions (WP:GNG criteria), then I said IAR and don't merge now to split off later. I usually don't hold this opinion in AfDs, and argue for merging, but in this case the GNG will soon be met (season just started). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you saying that this doesn't talk about development? Silver seren^C 20:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess it does more than I thought it did. "The Silence was inspired by Munch's The Scream .. Their look has been carefully created for maximum scare-factor .. The suits, in particular, are a nod to the Men In Black movies .. Made from Latex foam, the hands .." The rest is just a hype-building filler with comparisons, etc. Well, I guess I share the same sentiment with the keep below, of this eventually getting more coverage and ending up as a separate article anyway. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep In my opinion, some of the worst AFDs are ones that attempt to delete something that we'll almost certainly need an article on within the immediate future. I could give two shits about Dr. Who, but it's clear that this is going to be a recurring (probably season-long) nemesis, and the present sourcing is adequate for now. Yes, it will need monitoring to keep fan speculation at bay, but the same can be said for myriad pop-culture articles and is never cause for outright deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Starblind. There's a strong case that the article creation was premature, but there appears to be a sufficiency of secondary sources to establish at least bordeline notability, and a virtual certainty that more will appear. Better to keep the article now and reconsider the case for deletion in early June when the show goes on hiatus than delete/merge it now and recreate it in a month or two. There's also a reasonable case that the AfD is premature since next Saturday's episode is going to clarify how significant the Silence are within the show, and hence the potential of the article. Depending on how Saturday's episode turns out, I might change to merge, but the current evidence suggests that there will be sufficient content to support a quality articleby mid-June at the latest. 86.161.70.55 (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can an uninvolved admin please close this AfD? I think the acrimony is not worth continued expenditure of time given the result. Folks can then move onto better things to do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's scheduled to end on Sunday and I'm not aware of any provision for the early closure of an AfD in any circumstances other than WP:SNOW, which doesn't apply in this case because there's a sizeable clamouring for the article to be merged and redirected. I've just done a quick search for policy on this topic, and haven't found any, but there was a case a couple of years ago in which a consensus was reached that, "Except in certain specific circumstances (a clear – as in very clear – WP:SNOW situation, a withdrawn nom and no real !delete votes left, etc.) AfDs should simply never be closed early," and that, "As long as there is activity and that there isn't an obvious snow, then an AfD should stay up for 7 days." ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 14:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(snaps fingers) gosh darn, you got me there. okay, will wait till Sunday to see the result. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as per Starblind. I am somewhat taken aback about the relatively juvenile reactions on both sides. Personal attacks are never appropriate, nor is getting bent out of shape because a AfD is not going your way. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 19:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep as per Falerin, Sarek, et al --Joe Sewell (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Sources cited in article establish notability, in my view. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into "creatures and aliens". Just now it's only one story. One story does not give automatic notability. If they do get a bigger role, then perhaps an article is warranted, but not just now. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Whilst they may have only appeared in one episode so far, the entire fifth season was manipulated by this alien (the cracks in the universe, the explosion of the TARDIS, their spaceship above the Lodger's house, the many references to "Silence will fall" etc. E1tiger (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is not whether "the entire fifth season was manipulated by this alien" but whether the subject is notable. Your comment doesn't address this in any way. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 13:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SO by your rationale, should the similar article on the Weeping Angels be removed too? E1tiger (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'M sorry, I don't engage in WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 13:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - The sources listed are adequate to meet WP:GNG, albeit barely. If not, then merge and redirect to List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens. Deletion would be inappropriate, even if not quite notable enough, given that an appropriate redirect target exists. Rlendog (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This entire situation has just turned into a rampaging mess[edit]

Revert to redirect I'm actually vaguely embarrassed that it has blown so out of proportion. Thusfar, we only have a single episode worth of information about this species and not even information as such, more speculation than hard facts. The page can always be recreated when further information comes along (as I'm sure it will) and I or someone else can re-upload the picture. I move to have the page redirected until such time as there is more info to make a well fleshed-out article. I realize the article isn't mine, per se, but a redirect isn't the same as a deletion: it can always be reverted to an article. HalfShadow 18:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remainder of off topic discussion translocated to the talk page. Use it! Hasteur (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to list of Doctor Who aliens with the possibility of creating a full article later. Compare, for example, List of Torchwood characters#John Hart. The amount of sources it has is just enough to make it a nice section of a larger article, but not in such a state as to justify its own article. What is it's impact? How has it been received? What is the critical analysis? There isn't any yet. Also compare List of Glee characters; most get substantial coverage from first appearance, actors are interviewed etc., but none of that translates at the first instance into immediate cultural (encyclopedic?!) notability. None of the keep arguments have been convincing so far, I'm afraid. (Dear closing editor: they mostly ought to not be counted; cf. truthiness, to be avoided.)~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for now, as it passes the notability guideline, if only barely. Consider Merging into List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens at a later date; basically, while they may technically be 'notable' by our standards, it's not yet clear if this fictional race is important enough to justify a separate article. If it turns out that they're not, we can always merge and redirect the article, as there is no deadline. Trout-slap everyone above who's been taking this discussion too seriously: guys, this is an argument over whether a fictional alien race in a science fiction TV show should have an article or not. It is not the most important thing on Wikipedia, and it is not worth getting angry about. Robofish (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I might have !voted Merge except for the tone of the deletion request. It's going to become a much larger and better article, I suspect, over the next season. htom (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might have !voted Merge except for the tone of the deletion request. I think you're supposed to !vote based on the merits of the article rather than to spite the nominator, no? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 07:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes I, too, succumb to temptation, what else can I say? Sorry. htom (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, your !vote will be ignored by the closing admin, so I guess it doesn't matter that much... ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 07:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't matter so much as there are plenty more of them, so one more shouldn't matter one way or the other really. Keeps 26, Merges 13 currently, wow this is a fun AfD. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's possible to be factually correct but be so abrasive about it that people have a hard time agreeing with you. Why not just stop poking at everyone and let the community decide? Your conduct here has not helped your case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The coverage in the Guardian already mentioned by others, counts as notable coverage. And TreasuryTag, please stop being so rude and hostile to everyone else. You don't consider it notable coverage, but others do. Consensus seems to be that it is significant enough to prove notability. Dream Focus 08:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens. So far they have only appeared in one storyline and I feel it's just too early for a stand-alone article right now. If they become recurring characters (like the Ood or the Weeping Angels), then the article can be easily recreated. —BETTIA— ^talk 08:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However, neither the Ood or the Weeping Angels were ever the main villains of an entire season (technically two). The Silence are, which is why they have received so much coverage already just from one episode having aired. They are already confirmed that they are going to be around for the entire season, because they are the lead-up villains that were continually mentioned in Season 5. Silver seren^C 08:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens, despite the tone of the deletion request and the discussion. I don't personally think that the Guardian article is significant coverage; no doubt there will be a lot of future coverage if these monsters are in fact going to be the main villains of the season, but recreating the article once the coverage exists is not going to be a big deal. That may be as early as next week, perhaps, but until the sources are there, this ought to be merged. --bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There isn't a Guardian reference in the article, so i'm not sure what you're referring to, but are you saying that this, this, and this aren't significant coverage? 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for being unclear. A Guardian article was discussed above on this page - here it is. I don't feel that this is a particularly important matter, to be perfectly honest; it seems the article will stay and that doesn't bother me, even though my choice would have been different. --bonadea contributions talk 11:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(GN)Notability is founded in coverage in reliable sources. It's not enough that sources exist; they have to be ones worth taking note of.
The fact that the Mail, Express and Digital Spy (noted for parroting stories from The Star) are being offered as "reliable" sources here is, frankly, concerning. --88.104.40.103 (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you talking about? All three are considered reliable sources, the Daily Mail especially. The Daily Mail is the second biggest daily newspaper in England. Digital Spy is the "fourth largest British entertainment website" and the Daily Express is also an important newspaper with high readership. If it's about the tabloid business, I think you need to understand that tabloid in England doesn't mean the same thing as it does here. There, it means a type of formatting and layout of a page, mainly with huge lettering for the cover story. Silver seren^C 19:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm talking about reliabilty. You seem to think that popularity of a source is equivalent to its reliability. That is not the case. --88.104.40.103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

However, popularity generally is a good indicator of reliability. But, regardless, you have given no reasons for why they aren't reliable beyond your own opinion. If you think they are unreliable, then let's take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Here, i'll go make a discussion section right now. Silver seren^C 21:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion section here. Silver seren^C 21:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To quote Jimbo Wales: "I wonder how often we link to the Daily Mail as if it is actually a source for anything at all? The number of times we should do so is really quite small – for most things they are just useless". --88.104.40.103 (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it's a good thing then that Jimbo continually reminds everyone that he should just be considered the same as every other editor and that his opinion should not be considered more important than the opinion of anyone else. Furthermore, every newspaper has scandals where they mess up on something. Every major newspaper that I know of in the US has had multiple scandals where they wrote wrong and mis-informed articles. Pointing out just one example of such does not make one of the most read newspapers in the UK unreliable. Silver seren^C 07:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, entirely notable and far better-sourced than many other articles on similar subjects that I have seen. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, in my opinion notability has been established. --86.185.86.83 (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - since the story arc is "Silece will fall", the rest of the season may very well deal with these creatures. Also, nearly all reviews for "The Impossible Astronaut" commented on the newest creature, so a critical reception section can be easily added and later expanded. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As per all keep arguments above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezmasta2 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC) — Cheezmasta2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Keep Has sufficient coverage per WP:GNG for a stub at least. 81.152.71.101 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment TreasuryTag really should have conducted this AfD in a much less abrasive manner, this is very off-putting to new users. I wanted to post a keep, but I don't have the energy to go 12 rounds with certain people. User:Starblind has posted the most sensible comment so far: "It's possible to be factually correct but be so abrasive about it that people have a hard time agreeing with you. Why not just stop poking at everyone and let the community decide? Your conduct here has not helped your case." - hear hear. C 1 (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just another reminder, the discussion is never a vote. "Votes" which say "per all keep arguments above" are unnecessary and won't be counted. "Votes" which turn to an 'internal' significance (e.g. Silence will fall having been a phrase) also add nothing to the debate. Please attempt to discuss rather than "vote". Editors should be aware that significance ought to extend beyond the fact that there are 'sources'. My counter-example to such a proclamation is that clearly every minor character on Glee, because they attract tons of interviews and reviews and whatnot, would earn its own article, but instead this content is duly split between episode, season and list pages until it reaches a watershed moment. Truly, it could have a dozen sources repeating the information we have now, but that would not justify its position as a full article instead of a (wonderful!) section on the List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens page, until such time as it has developed some more varied areas of commentary and outside interest. I like that people are excited about this, and I like that people get excited to use Wikipedia in this way. And I get that people like having articles of this sort sooner rather than later because of it, but its sum content is not really that much to justify a page, even if you put in a year's plot summary (which would be bad too). When more commentaries come out, and if academic books and pop cultural analysts and significant newspapers in blogs open up an actually interesting discussion, then of course it would be justified having its own page. Every source that currently exists for "The Silence" is actually a wonderful source for "The Impossible Astronaut" and, if you wanted, the list page. But it doesn't have enough oomph to make its own page justifiable.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, you're wrong about the Glee character list. Only main characters are given articles, it doesn't matter how much coverage they get. This is why Blaine (Glee) was given an article lately, because he became a main character. And, if you're going to take the idea of only using articles for main characters, then of course the Silence will get an article, since they are the main villains of the entire season. Silver seren^C 10:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But this isn't true. There are lots of shows whose "main characters" don't get an article and there are other shows where minor characters do. It's about notability guidelines. And besides which, the statement that the Silence are a major player in the season is impossible for you, or I, or anyone to know for sure because those episodes haven't been aired yet. Sure, there are interviews saying who the "big bad" would be, but these could be misdirection by the producers. Therefore, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we should really be patient just a FEW MORE WEEKS before making the decision that an alien in two episodes deserves a full article. JRP (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether or not the Glee analogy is true, that is basically a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong keep This is very accurate. Just like every other Doctor who villain entry, in fact. - Another n00b (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL. Not an acceptable !vote. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Armenian moving[edit]

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

Strange article that appears to be pushing a point of view. Title does not mean anything and if there is anything of note it would be more appropriate in the existing Armenians article. noq (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Nonsensical essay-like article which fails numerous core content policies ╟─Treasury Tag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete there are already articles concerning the Armenian people, diaspora, culture, language, nation, massacre among other Armenian related topics. I don't know what the Armenian "moving" is but this article is clearly just a general information article on Aremnian and is strangely formatted and seems to be a potential copy and paste copyvio.Thisbites (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Content fork of History of Armenia. I'd suggest a merge, but that piece is already nice and this one is in pretty rough shape in terms of both style and content. I'm not quite sure what the title is meant to designate, it has a bad "auto-translation" feel to it... Carrite (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. I am bundling Armenian roots here as well. It appears the creator isn't quite sure what Wikipedia is all about, so I think I'll also leave a message on his/her talk page. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 16:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both – unsalvageable hotchpotch; synthesis advancing a particular POV. --Lambiam 19:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sedale Threatt Jnr[edit]

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

Overlooking the fact that the name of the article is incorrect ("Jnr" rather than ", Jr."), the references listed are essentially promotional. This article seems to be more focused on getting the word out about his basketball company than his playing career. Also, being related to notable people does not make one notable themselves. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Does not play at the only notable/professional level of Australian basketball (NBA) and the other sources are not significant enough to qualify under the WP:GNG.The-Pope (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I've tagged the article as a copyright violation of http://www.eurobasket.com/reports/2010/10/8.asp.

I've reverted the article to an older version found without the copyvio. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his father. Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL as a basketball player. Fails WP:GNG by lacking significant coverage that is not WP:ROUTINE. Also, sources that are websites from personal companies or employers are not WP:Independent_sources. —Bagumba (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electric Sea Spider[edit]

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

While he may be notable in the future, the current citations do not establish notability in reliable sources. The only citations currently are a few online mentions (mostly in a youth internet "radio" station) and a single mention in a local music paper. Perhaps he will grow to be notable, but currently it does not appear so. There is also a claim of TV appearances, but that claim was made from a link which made no mention of the Nine Network and either was synthesis of material or original research. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete self promotion or advertising seems to apply here to this non-notable artist.Thisbites (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong delete no coverage, nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Textron. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Textron Systems[edit]

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

This article consists of information sourced from the subject itself and has not be modified in over a year prior to my earlier attempt to speedy delete as a result of it simply being spam advertising for the company without any independent sources and no attempt to improve or fix it in a year's time. Chuglur (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. First, this is not promotional in my opinion, even less blatant spam. The article lacks references, true, but this is partially mitigated by the fact that all the content about the subsidiaries is from other Wikipedia articles that are better sourced, with the exception of Textron Defense Systems which needs more work. Also, there is little doubt that the subject is notable, as Textron runs several operational units that are by themselves notable for Wikipedia articles. Any problems that this article has can be solved without deletion. Zakhalesh (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is this is a subsidiary of a larger company and it doesn't need its own article if it is not distinguished enough to easily find independent sources for it. Most of the big companies only have separate articles for their biggest divisions that are easily citied. As well Textron may be notable but each individual division of Textron may not be notable as in this case. Chuglur (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well a quick Google search yielded interesting results. The company has made the news, even quite recently. Seems like they had a big contract coming their way. I stand by my opinion - the problems with the article aren't worth deleting for. Subsidiary merge could be a good idea, but let's not hurry about it. Zakhalesh (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problems are significant requiring a entire rewrite from scratch for many of the Textron related of articles just on a quick survey from the main holding company's page. It would be better for these 2 articles to be started from scratch with the speedy deletion option for duplicate material to encourage better rewritten articles in the future as no attempt has been made to further these articles since their inception in their current state which I should note is just over a year from today.Chuglur (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wouldn't be better to speedy the articles, because there's no criterion they match. The subject is notable and the article isn't written in a promotional tone. No editing doesn't mean that the article should be deleted either. The one bigger problem I see with this topic is that it's hard to find anything to say about Textron that isn't about one of the subsidiaries, making finding sources relevant to the Textron group as whole rather hard, which is why a merge here from the other articles could be appropriate. Zakhalesh (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it would be best to make it a subsection in the Textron Inc. article. It is a sub company and since the article is not very large, I believe a brief summary or condensed version in the over all Textron article would be best._{@ d \/\/ | | |}^Talk 13:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Textron Inc. That business must have an intriguing history that the current article hardly covers. This article contains swatches of nonsense (a provider of integrated intelligence software solutions and services) that would not need to be carried over. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that a merger would probably suit this article's needs better than keeping it at its current state. I leave the details to more experienced editors. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with merging as well.Chuglur (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I again say merging would be the best option. Adwiii Talk 11:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Planetarium hypothesis[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable. The only source provided for this hypothesis is the article in which it was proposed. The other two sources for the article do not mention the topic but discuss related topics. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you do a search for sources other than those already appearing in the article? There appear to be quite a few out there and I just added a couple.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep Sourcing seems adequate if not ideal... ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I've added two more independent sources that criticize this hypothesis yet acknowledge it. Nimuaq (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. With those I think the article is justified. I still think the "hypothesis" is more like a minor thought experiment than anything of real importance. As the critics said it can not be disproved so has little value in science. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment My initial response was exactly the same, but the fourth source adds ([6]) (...) it merits the term hypothesis rather than scenario because it offers testable predictions.. Nimuaq (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does? I will have to check that out. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting, but I don't understand how we could know what a "k3 civilization" could or couldn't do.Jaque Hammer (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Now that it has sources seems to pass all criteria for an article. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Adequate sources found. -- œ ^™ 23:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Answer to Carrite. All BLPs must have sources no matter when they were created. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matthew Webb (preacher)[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Although it's a common name I haven't been able to find any third-party coverage on this person to satisfy notability and the article doesn't claim anything remarkable. PROD previously removed by unregistered user without comment. Hut 8.5 13:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete Unreferenced BLP must go. ╟─Treasury Tag►collectorate─╢ 18:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no speedy deletion criterion for unreferenced BLPs (unless they're negative in tone, which this one isn't). Hut 8.5 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I shan't be offended if you don't read the word 'speedy' from my comment above. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 21:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as unverified. Nothing on a channel called "Wonderful Christian Network" on Google Web or News. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything reliable or even close to reliable that would support or develop noteworthy content. His name is mentioned here http://disciple21century.com/PGreferencelibrary.htm as being a minister but the link from his name is only a redirect to our article.Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Unsourced Biography of a Living Person. It has been around for a few years, not sure if such things were grandfathered in. In any event, that needs to be taken care of if this is kept, in my view. Carrite (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Unsourced and unverified--Hokeman (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Could not find any sourcing at all under "Matthew Webb" plus "televangelist". "Matthew Webb" plus "preacher" finds a ton of unremarkable other people by the same name. If you don't add a qualifier you get a ton of hits, mostly about the channel swimmer. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kurdish Air Force[edit]

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

I've deleted most of this as copyvio from http://jeunessekurde.fr/modules.php?name=Forum&file=viewthread&fid=22&tid=390 which doesn't mention an airforce in any case. I presume the editor means Kurdistan Regional Government but I can find no evidence that they have an airforce. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete can't find any evidence this organisation actually exists. There are a few claims that Kurdish pilots serving in the Iraqi air force amount to a "Kurdish Air Force" but that's not the same thing. Hut 8.5 13:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. If there was a "Kurdish Air Force", presumably it would be part of the Peshmerga armed forces operated by the Kurdish Regional Government. But the article Peshmerga doesn't say anything about them operating an air force, nor have I found information about the Peshmerga having an air force in other sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The country doesn't exist (although it should do). So we have an airforce for a country that doesn't exist - with no planes...Szzuk (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Drybrough[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. his only real claim to fame is being a board member of a notable company. that is the only thing he gets coverage for in gnews [7]. nothing about his career. LibStar (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - nothing but brief mentions. Yakushima (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Former member of the board of directors of a defunct, bankrupt company. Nothing to indicate his personal notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beverly Lynn Bennett[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article about an unremarkable vegan food writer. No evidence of notability, no reliable sources - fails WP:BIO, WP:RS andy (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Google News and Scholar both provide a limited number of reliable sources. I'm sure there are more that are simply not indexed. BelloWello (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my note below - "limited" is definitely the word for it! andy (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep- She is a published author and is known around the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.196.129 (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep. The article doesn't articulate the evidence for notability, but GNews does reveal a modest amount of coverage in reliable sources.[8]--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That search link in fact generates zero hits on current gnews and only 15 archive hits. That's not notability! andy (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - A poor article, but a case clearly can be made that this is a recognized expert in the field of vegan cooking. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then why not make that case, either here or in the article? Rose Elliot is a good example of a vegan writer who is unquestionably notable - awards, honours, lots of entries in reliable sources, recognised by her peers. Ms Bennett on the other hand, although no doubt a decent writer, has done nothing that distinguishes her from hundreds of other folk. I fail to see in what way she meets wikipedia's notability criteria. andy (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Perfectly notable person and frequently referenced in her field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my comments above. Will someone please add even one of these reliable sources to the article? andy (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm adding more sources now. Gnews unfortunitely doesnt archive newspapers terribly well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Discounting an influx of "very new users" there is a clear consensus below to delete as non-notable. Any future article should be written from scratch as there are copyvios in the deleted history. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eliz[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO criteria and the award section is a hoax as she isn't included in the 2010 IMA winners [9]. If the article gets deleted, someone should also delete her photo.[10] — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep - Primarily because, due to her Oname, it would be very time consuming to sort through google news results to show that there are no sources to prove notability. If nominator confirms that he has sorted through all relevant search results and has not found any mentions, then please count this as a delete. BelloWello (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The award is probably a hoax as she's not listed as an IMA winner and there is no media coverage indicating notability.--— Zja * Bulleted list item rriRrethues — ^talk 08:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep- All awards have properly been sited and referenced. Minor misunderstanding.

"Sited Video"- YouTube video link can confirm that she is the winner of the Best New Artist of the Year 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbWiefOo6lw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.242 (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link doesn't confirm the award and she isn't included in the 2010 IMA winners list. Btw are you Elizabeth Camacho or someone related to her?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am the publicist for Elizabeth Camacho represented by "ERI Records" and there is no relation. I have done research on the following artist. There are documented records that prove Eliz has won the award in Fayetteville, NC . This was a "local" event. This is NOT associated with "http://www.independentmusicawards.com/". This event is for this link "http://independentartistmusicawards.com/". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.242 (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article links to the actual IMA and that gives the false impression that she's an IMA winner. Local awards don't indicate notability. Has she given any interviews to national media etc. ?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please review National Media Interview Links for Eliz Camacho winning Best New Artist of the Year 2010: http://www.disarraymagazine.com/2010/12/artist-spotlight-interview-with- popr.html http://people.famouswhy.com/elizabeth_marie_camacho/ http://skopemag.com/2011/03/01/its-safe-to-say-eliz-camacho-got-it-going-on http://www.shegotnext.com/eliz_camacho.php http://blockstarzmusic.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1297160321&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1& http://fayettevillenc.backpage.com/PlugBand/x-pozsed-introduced-to-you-eliz-unsigned-super-star/4788132 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.242 (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eliz Camacho is also credited with winning "Musician of the Year 2010" on CHASEMEBABY.com (please see link) http://chasemebaby.com/thethrill/?p=20831 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.242 (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - if it weren't for the claim of an award, I would have speedied this. Needs further investigation. Deb (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I've changed my mind. Delete - these awards are clearly not notable. Deb (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible to just remove the "IMA Award" section until proven accurate? Other awards are notable. This website is not update but she has the same award that is given out. http://independentartistmusicawards.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.242 (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would leave no evidence of notability whatsoever. But while you're at it, could you maybe do something about the grammar and spelling? The quality of the article is extremely poor as it stands. Deb (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grammar changes to the Eliz Camacho page have been corrected. If there are any more corrections needed, please feel free to make any necessary adjustments. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.134 (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Keep Sourcing seems adequate and includes reliable and notable links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.146 (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Although IMA award is not listed (due to lack of updated webiste), Google searching "Eliz Camacho Independent Artist Music Award" shows accurate references and interviews from public online media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhooks27 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Keep - The Eliz Camacho biography will gradually evolve as she becomes more visual in the media. Let's clean it up and let time pass. The biography WILL evolve. There is no need to delete this only to add more to the biography as she makes more appearances and her buzz is heavy in the entertainment industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.140 (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment- This is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, despite the spate of support from the above obviously close-proximity IPs. I've removed the irrelevant college acceptance and what I identified as promotional material; I've reworked the rest, but it is as yet unreferenced, as my search yielded nothing. I'll go through the included linkfarm of references later to see if they support enough of the material to establish WP:N or WP:GNG. Dru of Id (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Delete- As copvio of this 'included' reference, unless my retooling has moved it far enough beyond that. Dru of Id (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further Comment- Actually, there doesn't seem to be a single section that isn't a copyvio of one linkfarm reference or another, and some duplicate each other. User:208.54.44.242 has voted twice; none of the votes for keep cite a valid policy reason to do so, let alone cite/meet those for speedy keep. Dru of Id (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment- Sounds like there an "issue with exact grammar usage. This issue has already been settled with proper alterations of the article.

Comment - The fact that the IP's are in close-proximity could be due to numerous reasons. Wikipedia does quote "All input is welcome." It could be that Eliz's popularity is expanding in her area and by searching the name "eliz camacho" the article is located in the google search which allows anyone to give input. This is irrelevant to the deletion of this article. Thank You

Numerous reasons for matching first three prefixes of (now 5 IPs with) 208.54.44.... 1) involved parties with conflict of interest 2) dynamic internet connection from the same computer 3) same location/building 4) various internet connections around the same/nearby town(s) 5) talked with friends... Which are you claiming? Dru of Id

Comment As I've stated before, Wikipedia quotes "all input is welcome" and to answer your questions, 1). IF there were any kind of conflict of interest in the article, the article would've been deleted on April 24, 2011. 2). The more feedback for the article, the better it is to make necessary decisions. Remember, in order for the article to be furthered there needs to be a valid argument. 3 and 4) Same location/building have nothing to do with an article's furthering as long as there is no conflict of interest. This article could have possibly been written in a public library, airport, or where ever WiFi access is available where these locations use "Shared IP addresses". 5)Talking with friends is a conflict of interest. However, researching information about the artist is interesting. I have stated my case.

Speedy Keep - This article has well over enough support and references on the internet. The search for the name "Eliz Camacho" is also very easy to find. However, this article NEEDS to be reworded so that it is not in any form of "plagiarism " from the "FAMOUS WHY" website. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.230 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Keep - Major alterations to the article's wording need to be made. The article is in complete form of the same wording as the FAMOUS WHY. Please make needed adjustments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhooks27 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I have been through the references in the article, and made a fairly broad search using the search links above. I didn't find any mentions in national media or well-known local printed media; the references I found were all minor internet sites. I see she has won an award but the award does not appear to be major, and I don't take this as proof of notability. Couple this with the copyright violation problems highlighted by Dru of Id and deletion seems appropriate to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The X Factor (Philippines)[edit]

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

No reliable sources for this edition of The X Factor. This is a possible hoax in Philippine TV shows and fails WP:NFF and WP:MUSIC in each categories. No majority sources for this show. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as possible hoax. If it was real, it would have some references but I have been unable to find any. –anemone projectors– 12:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan ^work 13:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan ^work 13:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan ^work 13:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Possible hoax. No citations from local media about the franchise itself, just some fan-made petitions that it be held in this or that network. (Filipinos are pretty obsessed about TV. They even count commercials to determine whether the show is a hit, but that's another story.) Starczamora (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Memory of Joan of Arc[edit]

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

The scope of this article is identical to that of Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. It is written in the form of an essay rather than an encyclopedia article and is tagged for requiring clean-up. However, cleaning it up would produce something identical to "Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc", which would not be helpful in building this encyclopedia. --Simon Peter Hughes

Delete. Student paper overlapping Joan of Arc and Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. There is no need for a separate article entitled "Memory of". Any details not already covered can be merged to the other articles. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as unnecessary Fork. There is also a problem with the title - the author is thinking of a particular sense of memory to do with cultural legacy and interpretation that need have little to do with memory in the sense in which we might understand it when reading an eyewitness account for example. It is not a useful search term, and as pointed out more an essay title. --AJHingston (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as a content fork. The creating editor should feel free to add sourced information to existing articles on Joan of Arc. This is pretty clearly an original essay with a couple links pasted in... Carrite (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please delete this horrible Citizendium cut and paste mosh pit. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Research on Steiner Education[edit]

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

New journal established in 2010. Not notable yet, article creation premature. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Crusio, thank you very much for your support in improving this article and for supplementing basic informations (info box). I read about the quality criteria regarding academic journals in the English-language Wikipedia. I am convinced that it is possiblle to fulfill the requirements. My idea: not to delete this article but to improve it step by step. I would appreciate all your further suggestions. Best regards, Issajewitsch (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, a new journal, only two issues published, not indexed anywhere (in particular, not indexed in Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, etc). No evidence of passing either WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Nsk92 (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: it is indexed in the equivalent Norwegian index. hgilbert (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The Norwegian site you mention is not an "equivalent" of citation indexes like Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus in any sense. The site itself appears to be very obscure and a listing there does not make the journal "indexed". The citation indexes like Scopus, Web of Science, etc, contain publication data about every article published in a journal indexed there (the author(s) names, article title, abstract, references, citations etc). That is what being "indexed" means. This Norwegian thing you mention appears to simply record the fact that the journal exists, basically like a catalogue entry. That is far cry from being "indexed". Nsk92 (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. It's listed in the official Norwegian register of approved academic journals[11]. It's also, to my knowledge, the only such journal in its field. It's quite common for journals in the humanities and social sciences not to be widely indexed, especially non-English journals or journals in small or emerging fields of research. 129.240.214.129 (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC) — 129.240.214.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

Comment. That's not correct. There are databases specializing in social sciences and/or humanities journals. This journal is not indexed in any of those databases either. --Crusio (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep is the right decision. Здравствуйте, товарищи (that means: Hello colleagues). The reference list has now newly added literature. A registration of the journal by the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) is in process. New steps are planned. Best regards from Russia. Issajewitsch (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC) — Issajewitsch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
- The references you added are to the articles published in this journal itself. They do absolutely nothing to establish its notability. Nsk92 (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This is a highly specialized, peer-reviewed journal on research in Waldorf education, the only such journal in this field. Interestingly, with only two issues so far for this journal, there are 3 citations in recently published books, one of which contains a chapter revision of one of the RoSE Journal articles. Given the publication in Europe in both German and English, I agree it's not surprising that this journal is not widely indexed yet. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- 3 citations of articles published in this journal is miles away from establishing notability. If there were a few thousands (or at least a few hundreds) citations, there would be something to talk about. The fact that there are so few citations may not be surprising, but that is exactly the point: there is no indication of notability of the journal at this point and the article's creation is extremely premature. The journal is not indexed in any of the major citation indices, the existing citations are in single digits. The entry fails WP:GNG by more than a mile, and it does not come close to passing the more generous standards of Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) either. Nsk92 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Друзья, дело в том that I added in a new footnote the comment and the reference of the German "Wissenschaftsrat" regarding the editorship of Research on Steiner Education, established by the Alanus University of Arts and Social Sciences. This Council is the highest representative (state) body for science in Germany. It is responsible for the accreditation of universities and their research and study profiles. It should be clear that this Council represent a high independent level of evaluation. The quoted source has a high degree of reliability. Best regards: Issajewitsch (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An in-passing mention in an internal report (even though it is posted online). It looks like the journal might become notable in the future, but at this point, it isn't and WP is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry: "internal report"?? The report of the Council is accessible for everybody! (Published on the website of the Council) This is part of a transparent and verifiable accreditation process of the scientific community in this country. The importance of the journal for present is formulated by the authors of the evaluation report. And Crusio, excuse me: to write about a "crystal ball" in the context of such a source is not fair. It is polemic.Issajewitsch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Sorry, I didn't intend to be polemic. However, that report states that this is a good initiative. I don't think anybody will disagree with that. Whether it's going to be more than an initiative and develops into a notable journal remains to be seen in the future, hence the reference to the "crystal ball" (if you click that link, you can read the relevant policy. --Crusio (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Seems to not pass WP:NJOURNALS. Too soon, too soon... Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Lacks the coverage in independent, reliable sources to justify an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:NJOURNAL and WP:GNG, no independent significant coverage found. Dragquennom (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Africa international relations[edit]

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

Appears to be an essay or (largely) original research. No true references, only a pair of external links and a further-reading list. Possible copy-and-paste. Author has a history of such diatribes (he's already up to the final-warning level). Contested PROD, removed by original author without explanation. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I was going to nominate this myself when I saw the PROD had been removed. The article is an essay; someone's homework. It is devoid of references or wikilinks and full of original research. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Keep and Rename: Unhelpful, unresearched and POV AfD in blatant violation of WP:BEFORE. It is a valid and notable topic and there are tons of references. Passes WP:RS and WP:N. Right now the article is original research, but that does not mean it cannot be improved. A poorly written article needs improvement, AfD is the wrong venue. If you want to contribute constructively, improve the article, there is no positive merit in rushing for an AfD. Rename the article to International relations among African countries or something. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uh, just how is this a POV? I have no leanings one way or another on this subject, and you have absolutely no basis whatsoever in assuming that I do. Please refrain from making accusations against other editors which have no basis in fact. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might want to read WP:BIAS and Americentrism. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, as an American. I am somehow not allowed to bring this up for an AfD? Preposterous! I could care less about the point of view of this article. It is an essay and appears to contain original research. That is the problem - in any country. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete: Topic may be notable, but is written like an essay, with no links or inline citations. Most of what is covered in the article is covered in other pages. Unless the article was improved along the lines of a history of international relations in Africa, international relations of the OAU or international relations by country, don't see a reason to keep - it makes no sense to lump an entire continent's foreign relations into one article when the continent does not act as a whole. Ignorant Armie s 09:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: ReferenceDesker, it is best if you try to be more civil when discussing anything on Wikipedia. This article has not been dominated for deletion because it deals with Africa, it has been nominated because it is not written in the way that Wikipedia articles should be written. Ignorant Armie s 09:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That needs clean up, not deletion. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admittedly the current text isn't ideal, but it would be possible to write a decent encyclopaedic article with this title, and AfD is not for cleanup. In other words, when you find content like this, you're supposed to fix it, not delete it.—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Subsequently) On looking into this some more, I see that an encyclopaedic article with this title would largely duplicate content we already have (which is at Foreign relations of the African Union). I think the best thing to do would be to redirect to that title for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foreign relation of AU refers to the interaction between the AU (all AU members as a single entity) and the outside world. But this article is about intra-African relations. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then it should be called African internal relations. I must say that your position appears to be "keep but rewrite and rename" which doesn't make much sense to me, because what you're proposing to keep is different content with a different title.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current article has little or no content dealing with relationships between African countries, it just deals with relationships between Africa as a whole and the rest of the world; most of what is in the article is covered in foreign relations and history of the African Union and Pan-Africanism. The article currently seems slightly POV toward Africa/ns (not that that can't be fixed). Ignorant Armie s 12:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Actually a very good article. But because its scope is so broad, covering any African country over the past 200 years or so, it is really not suited for an encyclopedia which should be for concrete information on specific topics. An essay on general trends, no matter how insightful and how important the topic, belongs someplace else. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're supposed to have broad-scope articles, so that's not a reason for deletion. I mean, we've got an article that's just called Africa, right?—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep - article sounds like a worthwhile encyclopedia article which requires a major clean up if kept. As per WP:RS and WP:NOTES, Expert on this subject matter is necessary. Major restructure e.g. footnotes or fix up required if kept. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 07:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete At the moment, this is all OR. AfD is not cleanup, but we should also not be hosting an unacceptable page until it is proven that it can be fixed up. A redirect to another logical article could be fitting for now, but we don't want people to write OR essays on topics and have the essays kept just because the topic could potentially be suitable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a given list of external links and references. If one spend some time and dig it up, info contained can be attributed to those references, so its fixable and a clean up by adding foot notes and checking for basic facts isn't so hard rather than slam the rule book for delete. I do admit, material submitted sub par minimum standards stay in wikipedia for a long time before it gets fixed through the backlog. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 09:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Userfy for clean-up if there is anyone willing to take up that task, otherwise delete. The topic itself, although broad, is certainly notable. The writing and sourcing, on the other hand... When it gets to this point it's sometimes better to start from scratch. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete WP:OR written like an essay, scope is too broad, covering the whole of Africa instead of focusing on individual countries. Dragquennom (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chambersburg Cardinals[edit]

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

Fails notability standards (WP:N, WP:GNG, only reference is the team website, fails COI/NPV, potentail ADV). Previously deleted via WP:PROD, brought back via WP:REFUND for an apparent procedural review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and attempt to save by finding some sources; Google News archives return over 100 hits, so there should be at least some to back up the information here. If sufficient sources cannot be found, redirect to Seaboard Football League. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I'm not ready to withdrawl, but it is looking better!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment It's a work in progress. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn article and sourcing has improved dramatically, nice job. Still needs some cleanup on sources cited, but it is down to simple editing and deletion should no longer be considered.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2009 Richmond High School gang rape[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously nominated for deletion, shortly after it was created, and was narrowly kept by a no-consensus vote. I think its time to revisit this issue. The article seems like a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. While there was some national coverage of the incident, there has been almost no lasting impact of the event, everything about the event seems to date from the standard news cycle which covered it. Seems like a minor event, ultimately. Tragic, to be sure, but not up to Wikipedia standards regarding notability of criminal events. Jayron32 03:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete. Despite the substantial coverage, I'm leaning on WP:PERSISTENCE as I don't see any lasting coverage of the event other than initial media buzz. That said, this is definitely a grey area in terms of policy and if more recent coverage were to pop up I'd be inclined to change my position. elektrik SHOOS 16:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Richmond High School (Richmond, California), where a good synopsis of the event is currently. Tavix | Talk 20:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Richmond High School (Richmond, California). Keep - Searching Google brings up 2,870 hits, many of which are in depth/significant, therefore one can argue that the subject already passes WP:GNG. However, if one believes that this well referenced page can be condensed, keeping all referenced material, and merged to the aforementioned article, then so be it; if the content grows beyond a reasonable size there it can always be spun out. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- You'll notice most of the links are either to a) news aggrigators (i.e. websites that take news reports from one site and pass them on unedited) so do not represent seperate information b) wikipedia mirrors c) news reporting from the time of the event (i.e. part of the standard news cycle). The arguement presented by me to delete wasn't that the news coverage did not exist, it was that it did not represent an event of lasting significance. From Wikipedia:Notability (events), "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Rather than counting raw google hits, if you could present sources which provide further analysis that would actually go a long way towards convincing people (principly me) that the article deserves to stay. Given that I did the google search you did, and many others as well, using google news and google scholar and many other permutations, and found myself in my research before nominating this article, no analysis of the event, and just run-of-the-mill reporting, that is why I nominated it for deletion. --Jayron32 00:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete on the basis of NOTNEWS. Sensational events in the news like this one will always produce a multitude of articles in so-called "reliable sources" unquote /s. What the idea of NOTNEWS is meant to express is that we should not rush to create an encyclopedia article about each fresh sensational blip on the horizon of popular culture, but rather that we should instead cover only those matters with enduring historical or cultural significance. A gang rape (!!!) at a school (!!!) while a scheduled event was going on (!!!) sure sells newspapers. This does not rise to the level of an encyclopedia-worthy event, however, unless somehow down the road society or law is somehow morphed by the event. This is a pure, clear, obvious example of where we need to say, "I don't care if there are stories in 30 newspapers from around the country, this is not an encyclopedia-worthy event." Carrite (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for now. There is significant coverage and analysis in which the event is treated as more than a simple crime. It's just too soon to say whether the event will have any lasting impact - according to the article the trial hasn't even taken place yet. Dlabtot (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep for now. I agree with Dlabtot. There is still the posibility of long term impact from this. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Meets all standards for keeping an article. Huge coverage of the event in notable publications. Hundreds of thousands of google hits. Richmondian (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS notnews is about "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". this was by no means routine news.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmondian (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - That wikipedia is not news is a lie in itself in my opinion as Wikipedia is based on news. Anyhow this article should stay on it has reached national and international headline when occuring and has good standard sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The event meets various subsections of WP:EVENT, including WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE. Despite being a relatively recent event, it had already made mention in at least one criminal justice book. Run-of-the-mill crimes do not get this sort of coverage. Location (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep per Dlabtot. --John (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judith Holofernes[edit]

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

No indication of notability, beyond membership in a band which already has its own WP page Perchloric (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, if you check the page at de.wikipedia: [12], there's more than enough reliable sources which would indicate notability. It would merely take someone with the German knowledge and will to translate to bring much of it over to en.wikipedia. --Jayron32 04:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for exactly the reasons mentioned above. I will go through the German sources later and bring some across. A13ean (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment OK, but much of the German page (based on Google translate) seems also to be trivia about her birth, life, name, etc. Quote from WP:BAND: members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band. I looked at a few of the sources and it's not clear that they establish she has done notable things independent of the band "Wir sind Helden". Perchloric (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. This is a silly situation because she is actually at least as notable as the band whose "front woman" she is, although possibly not independently of it. I think the German press generally treats Wir sind Helden as an appendage of Judith Holofernes. But in any case it's always Judith Holofernes who appears in talk shows as a talk guest, not the entire band (example; the clip, from a state broadcaster, shows 15 minutes of discussion about her life). Hans Adler 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: I am not at all interested in modern music, but I became aware of her (not the band!) when Bild asked her for a critical statement (about Bild) that they would use for advertising, she rejected that in very strong terms, and then Bild published her letter as an advertisement in Die Tageszeitung. This was all over the German media, and I am not sure that it involved the band. Hans Adler 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment If this is true, it should be easy for someone who reads German to add sources to the article making it clear that she is notable in her own right. Perchloric (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was USERFY. It's indisputable that this does not belong in article space, but it's conceivable that this could be useful to its creator as notes for further development and discussion of the article Safavid dynasty. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Safavids/OfficalNameOrigin[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic POV fork. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete – Unencyclopedic POV. ttonyb (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Eeekster (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete user essay about an article on Wikipedia by a Wikipedia user should not be in articlespace. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brendan McGuigan (NICJI)[edit]

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

This is an orphan page for a non-notable public figure. Meloukhia (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The subject does not seem to meet the GNG, as it lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hardcore punk#Electronic music. redireting for attribuation purposes. If the merged para gets removed from the article let me know and I can delete this Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electronically influenced hardcore[edit]

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

An article on this topic was deleted three times as Electronicore and once as Electronic hardcore (see AFD). (Update: An article on this subject may have also been previously deleted as Synthcore and Trancecore, two additional articles that the author has redirected to this page.) From there it was merged with post-hardcore, but as of March 2011 the information was heavily marked up for being poorly sourced, and much of the section has since been removed. While this new incarnation features 54 sources (at the time of nomination), very few of them are reliable sources. Most of them are non-notable reviews or user-generated content (as opposed to being created by the website's staff). The general notability guideline is looking for sources that "address the subject directly in detail," but while sifting though all of the references, I couldn't find one that was actually about electronically influenced hardcore, only reviews that trivially mention an electronic influence in said album. The connection between these reviews was formed by the author and is thus original research. This article gives undue weight to a non-notable trend that's only acknowledged by a minority of album reviewers. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete At first I thought it was just poorly formatted, but investigating the sources I encountered exactly the problems described above. Many of them are not reliable and the text is based on synthesis of which involves taking passing comments out of context. Can a single reliable source be produced that describes electronically influenced hardcore? If not I think it has to be deleted.--SabreBD (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

STRONG Keep The very first reference in the article begins by specifically addressing the trend. The fourth reference also mentions the trend, again not just applying it to one individual band. Sputnikmusic states that "there has been a surplus of "electronica/hardcore" music." Most of the reviews and bios used as sources CLEARLY demonstrate a fusion of electronic music and hardcore punk subgenres (although your right that most simply apply this to a single band or musician). It's impossible to deny that this trend has become very notable. Also keep in mind that the page DOES NOT EVER suggest that "electronically influenced hardcore" is a musical genre. In fact the term "electronically influenced hardcore" is not the "title" of this fusion, and is not essential to the article. It's just a fitting term used to describe the broad fusion. So of course I wouldn't expect a reference to exist that SOLELY discusses the fusion. Just because these references discuss the fusion in relation to specific bands doesn't mean the fusion is not notable.♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 23:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional comment The article electronically influenced hardcore makes ONE essential claim. The entire article is based on this claim. The rest of the page simply gives examples of the truth found in this claim. That claim is found in the opening sentence: "Many modern practitioners of hardcore punk subgenres such as post-hardcore, metalcore, and screamo have been influenced by electronic music." This is claim is completely accurate and THOROUGHLY referenced! Consider this: A reference that primarily discusses the fusion of these subgenres and electronic music is not even essential to prove the accuracy of this claim. What is needed are references that show that "many modern practitioners" of hardcore punk genres use electronic elements. The references that follow that statement show that there ARE post-hardcore, metalcore, and screamo acts that use elements of electronic music. So, the primary claim of the article is referenced as truth. ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 00:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional comment This article may look like a repeat attempt of the article "Electronic hardcore" (which was rightfully deleted) but said article claimed that "electronic hardcore" was a distinct musical genre. This article simply notes that there has been an increase in the use of electronic elements among post-hardcore, metalcore, and screamo groups. ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 00:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "very first reference" is from DeadPress. The reliability of this source was questioned here at the reliable sources notice board. No one in this discussion deemed it notable, and most noted that the site could potentially be sending out harmful malware to its readers. The "fourth reference" you mention in this discussion was deemed unreliable in this conversation at Wikiproject albums, and otherwise doesn't seem to be contributed by a staff-member. The Sputnikmusic source you mention in this discussion, and I believe all of the other ones in this article, are not written by staff members of the website. The biographies on that website are essentially Wiki-style pages (note the "Edit Band Information" button on the left side), and staff-written reviews are differentiated by the word STAFF in red lettering next to the author's name (as seen in this review). Fezmar9 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drastic edits I drastically simplified the page because it was brought to my attention that much of the information was poorly referenced, and the article made the trend appear to be significantly more notable than it truly is (see edit). I'm also replacing references. I replaced the Sputnikmusic source with a statement from Sumerian Records (which appears to have been the original source for the statement in the first place). I'll continue to replace and improve references until this article is at an acceptable position. ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 01:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

STRONG KEEP There are plenty of references here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.240.120 (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Principally for the benefit of the above IP user, putting strong in front of keep/delete or using capitals will not make any difference to the result of the debate and it is not a vote so only reasons really count. The article has been improved by removing some of the text and dubious sources, but at the moment there are still a lot of these left, particularly the Sputnikmusic ones and some of the use issues remain. I think it is fair enough to give time for interested editors to find alternatives and to improve the article, so I will wait and see how it looks in a few days, but I do not feel the notability and reliablity are established yet.--SabreBD (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest this article be merged with nintendocore. to my knowledge, no term has been coined yet for the electronic/hardcore genre but there are many bands who use trancecore, nintendocore etc... i would put all those "electronically influenced hardcore" genres into one article. SebDaMuffin (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be like suggesting that the article be merged to Industrial metal. Although the style is related, Nintendocore is a stand-alone genre that involves a fusion of video game music and hardcore punk. This is a different topic. If anything, if the page cannot remain then it should certainly be redirected to Electronic rock.

All references have been redone (April 25, 2011). Many of the above arguments may have been resolved and may now be void. From this statement forward, please discuss the article based on its current status.

Comment As simple as the article now is, it is reliably referenced. It contains appropriate, factual information about this recent trend. I no longer see any cause for deletion. ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 01:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The massive list of unreliable sources was only one of the five or so concerns listed in the nomination. This topic still doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines due to the lack of sources that are actually about electronically influenced hardcore. The references you should be looking for need to "address the subject directly in detail" and contain "more than a trivial mention." So while you've adequately demonstrated that the listed bands perform this style, what you haven't done is demonstrate that this style itself is notable. Let me use another genre as an example. The bands Isis, Neurosis, Cult of Luna and Pelican all play (or at one point in their careers played) a mix of sludge metal and post-metal. So why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on post-sludge-metal? There are no published articles on this topic, and it's sufficient enough to list both of these genres in these artist's infoboxes separately without having to form an entirely new article like post-sludge-metal. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete That is almost recentism of a "musical neologism". We used to call this unpublished synthesis of [poorly] sourced content. Also, post-metal is post-rock fused with sludge metal, considering heavy metal a vague term to describe post-metal's foundations.--Malconfort (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Well, atleast a major concern of the article has been addressed. If no sources can be found that directly describe the fusion and the article is deleted based on lack of notablility, atleast I have a properly referenced paragraph that I can add (in part) to a few related pages (like post-hardcore for example). --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 17:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability comments The article written by a staff member of The New Review specifically addresses the trend. The reference by Sumerian Records mentions the trend itself, but with a nonspecific nature. The other references acknowledge the trend by applying it to specific bands or musicians. I'm also looking for additional information. ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 17:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

REDIRECT to Hardcore punk#Electronic music. I've added the most reliably referenced portions of this article to the section "influence on other genres" and subsection "electronic music" on Hardcore punk. You're right that the fusion isn't notable enough for its own page. Reliable references regarding the fusion do exist though, as you can see at the link above. Considering that other Wikipedia pages may contain links to Electronically influenced hardcore, it would be more appropriate to blank the page and redirect it (and maybe prevent edits) than to delete the link entirely. Although the fusion has become popular, popular enough to form a well referenced paragraph, it is not notable enough for its own article. A redirect here would TRULY be most appropriate.

"Electronically influenced hardcore" is an implausible search term and would not make a suitable redirect. A Google search turns up 37 hits out of the entire internet, and the majority of them are Wikipedia articles or mirrors of Wikipedia articles. It's not a common enough of a phrase that people would be looking for it. This "trend" is also supposedly a mix of various styles, and could theoretically redirect to a number of different articles. Why should this redirect to hardcore punk and not metalcore? or electronic rock? or dubstep? or nintendocore? Also, since this information was deemed original research and an improper synthesis of sources, this probably doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already mentioned that the term "electronically influenced hardcore" is not essential to the trend at all. You won't find that term anywhere because its a term I invented to describe the fusion. The trend has no "official term." And it makes PERFECT sense to redirect the article to a Hardcore punk#Electronic music. This article was ALL ABOUT electronic influence on hardcore punk subgenres. The information found at Hardcore punk#Electronic music is in no way OR, and besides this isn't the place to discuss whether or not content on a separate article is appropriate and should stay, this is the place to discuss whether or not THIS ARTICLE should redirect to anywhere on Wikipedia. See Talk:Hardcore punk for that. Reliable information on the topic can be found at Hardcore punk#Electronic music. It would make no sense to delete the article instead of simply removing all content and redirecting there. What would be the advantage of "red links" across Wikipedia where a link to this page exists. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to redirect the link to a page that contains useful information? --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 02:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You make it seem as if "red links across Wikipedia" would be highly damaging. I count only nine article links to electronically influenced hardcore. That's hardly damaging at all, especially when you consider "across Wikipedia" means 3.5 million articles. They could easily be updated by hand, or I think there's even a bot for this specific task. In this case, creating red links is really a non-issue. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"You won't find that term anywhere because its a term I invented to describe the fusion." That's for blasphemy!--Malconfort (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, Fezmar. And I actually just went through and reformatted those nine links in anticipation of delete. ps: Malconfort, I don't get how the link to Incantation (band) is relevant at all (but your point is well taken). --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 23:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relax, take it easy and smoke weed because it's just a pun [or "a term I invented to describe the fusion"].

--Malconfort (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol... :P

Close AfD - this appears already to have been merged. Did I miss something? Bearian (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT. Note that AFD was unnecessary to implement this. postdlf (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Julia Hoffman[edit]

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

There are currently two pages on the same character, the other article appearing more appropriate. Much of this article seems completely fan-written with no meaningful or useful content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benniebop1991 (talk • contribs)

Speedy redirect to Julia Hoffman as is standard for a duplicative article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge or redirect to Julia Hoffman, depending on whether or not anything can be kept (it doesn't seem like it). Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. There is a consensus below to not delete the article. Further discussion of a merge might be productive, or it might not, but that can be pursued on the article talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When Doctors Disagree (short story)[edit]

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

PROD removed with comment: "all works of this famous author are probably notable ; criticism available in the many books on wodehouse. First look for sources, & if not found, only then consider merging, certainly not deletion. See WP:BEFORE." I have searched Google Books, Google scholar and JSTOR, Project MUSE and other journals available via a university library, but found only listings of the story and links to on-line copies of the story. No in depth coverage or even reviews, therefore not notable. Suggest redirect to The Man Upstairs. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong keep Difficulty in finding sources (in this particular case) is down to a deficiency in the internet. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 02:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Per WP:BK criteria #5, while notability is not generally inherited, this author seems to be of such a stature that any work written by him is notable by virtue of his having written it. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As above but the point I want to make is that there is a world outside the Internet and things were happening in the 20th century. Using online searches for notability is highly biased towards the last decade and severely prejudices against older material. Putney Bridge (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: The Project MUSE and JSTOR archives contain journals going back, in some cases, to the nineteenth century. As I said, there is nothing there covering this story, but there are listings of it in bibliographies. I do not dispute that the story exists, but there appears to be no available significant coverage. I think the article should be redirected to the parent, The Man Upstairs until something is found. WP:NBOOK critrion #5 says: "We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature." The short story has not been "been widely cited or written about". Further: "It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not." Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep or Merge. There seems little dissent that P. G. Wodehouse counts as a major author and brings criterion #5 of WP:BK. The question is whether this should be applied to just The Man Upstairs or all stories within this book. However, I think there can be little doubt that a plot summary has a place somewhere in Wikipedia, either in this article or part of The Man Upstairs article (possibly in a condensed form). I don't think deletion is a serious option. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be happy with a merge. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - just because Wodehouse is notable, doesn't obligate us to host an exhaustive plot summary of every obscure short story he ever published. This story fails our notability tests; and cannot "inherit" notability just because it's by a notable person. Neville-Smith's reasoning completely escapes me, since this is not Wodehousepedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- You are welcome to argue for a change in notability policy, but as it stands, criterion #5 of WP:BK doesn't see it that way. P.G. Wodehouse is easily one of the most historically significant British authors of the last century, and there is a good reason why all works by major authors can be considered notable: they all contribute towards the history of the author and his/her work. The only question is how far we go when defining all works. An individual short story is debatable, but a published collection of short stories is on par with a novel. An article about a notable novel would have a substantial plot summary of the story, so it's quite reasonable that a collection of short stories should have a mini-plot summary about each story. So we're basically down to a decision of whether the plot summary of a short story within a published book written by a major author belongs in an article about the story or an article about the collection, and another decision on whether the current plot summary is the right length and detail. Either way, the plot summary has a place in some kind of finished article (with or without condensing), so WP:PRESERVE means we should keep the information on the plot summary somewhere. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Project MUSE and JSTOR are comprehensive, but not complete, and Wodehouse is a significant icon. The significance of each individual short story is debatable, compared with the greater utility of having articles on each short story collection, unless an individual story should reach a higher level of notability, e.g., Kafka's "A Country Doctor". This doesn't mean that we should delete the article. Keep it until improvements can be made; this article will in all probability end up merged into an article on one of his short story collections. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 19:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into The Man Upstairs, with a redirect. We must remember that WP:NOTJUSTPLOT also applies, and therefore the article should not be stand-alone unless we have real-world information. The Man Upstairs, being a compilation, should conceivably have more verifiable information and reliable sources discussing it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rorke's Drift Art and Craft Centre[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The article is incomprehensible. There is no referencing or evidence of notability. Gillyweed (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The article, although lacking a proper opening paragraph to establish context quickly, is far from incomprehensible. As I wrote when I contested the WP:PROD tag there is plenty of evidence of notability found by a Google Books search, which is helpfully linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I see that notablility is asserted in the article. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 10:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - it does lack a opening paragraph, images and more then basic formatting, but, as mentioned above, it's far from being incomprehensible. Another Type of Zombie ^talk 17:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to merged article content as suggested. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I, Wombot[edit]

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

It might be argued that the robotics team got enough coverage to be notable, but the documentary itself didn't. Unremarkable documentary. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge As nom. The team is notable, but I can't see how separating out coverage of the film into another article would make for a better encyclopedia. They both warrant coverage, but under one article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The team doesn't have a page, so a merge isn't possible. If someone wanted to add content in this article to demonstrate notability of the team, then propose a MOVE, then I would consider withdrawing. I'm not completely convinced the team meets notability, btw, but it would be easier to demonstrate as sources *likely* exist. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect and merge any content into FIRST Robotics Competition. I guess a documentary being made about the competition itself is quite a big deal (for it), so I would perhaps recommend a mention in the article of the film, and to redirect this title there. Bob talk 08:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I've added most of the useful content into the FIRST Robotics Competition article, so I would recommend redirecting the title to FIRST Robotics Competition#Sponsors and media exposure. Bob talk 08:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and a BLP subject that does not clearly meet notability guidelines. Cool Hand Luke 19:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ramin Farahmandpur[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested PROD, previously deleted in 2007 and re-created, does not appear to meet guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Wtshymanski (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
week Keep He has published a good deal since 2007. is earlier book was reviewed in Educational Studies (American Educational Studies Association) v. 40 no. 2 (Oct. 2006). and in Teaching Education (Columbia, S.C.) v. 17 no. 4 (Dec. 2006), & is in over 200 libraries. Now checking articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep with a GS h index of 12 in a low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete :Poorly written, lacking notability as an academic. Lack of references. Claims to his publishing history since 2007 are not grounds for keeping an Academic stub sans citations and references. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - The article does not seem to conform to WP:BIO. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 09:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. It's a self-promotional bio that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kelantanese dinar[edit]

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

Discussed items are not coins but privately minted gold aimed at retail "investors". The clever promotion campaign even got some mainstream newspapers to cover them, but they are just (overpriced) commercial products. They are not legal tender and not a currency of Kelantan or any other public entity. The page amounts to a free ad for the issuers. It is regularly changed to add dubious or misleading information Peterk2 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: seriously lacks notability. Alexius08 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- On the basis of what notability guideline? The GNG, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources"? Or the mysterious "a currency has to be legal tender to be notable guideline", that I don't seem to be able to find? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in Malaysian national newspapers. A careful look at the coverage shows that it is both positive and negative. If that coverage can be translated into the article, we can have a well-balanced article ourselves. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Lacks notability; souvenir item, not legal tender; external reference hijacks the browser. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I presume you looked at the references then, and all the other news articles that aren't currently used as references, but could be? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Non-notability arguments seem to be based on the promotional external links. Hasn't anyone noticed the press coverage cited? - Yk (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: There is an external links cited in this article but only some of the part were poorly written. - WPSamson (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Delete as commercial spam. Carrite (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)~~Reply[reply]

Stricken. My bad. Sufficient sources are showing. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. There is ample significant in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish that this is a notable topic. The fact that something can be bought on the market does not mean an article on it is commercial spam. This is not commercial spam any more than our article Krugerrand. --Lambiam 16:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Even if this is indeed a souvenir item, coverage demonstrates that it is a notable one. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[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.