< 20 August	22 August >

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. v/r - T P 23:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MdL (producer)[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient reliable, secondary sources to establish notability under WP:GNG/WP:MUSICBIO. The name makes searching tricky, there is a press release that mentions the artist here, and there's the blog post in the external links section. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. The article is practically empty, anyway. Pburka (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 18:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, added three sources, two independent and one not independent but significant coverage enough to expand the article. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:MUSIC. I see very few sources about this 20 year-old subject, and the ones I do see aren't impressive enough to pass MUSIC or GNG. Strange this discussion has been open since 8/21 with no relist. BusterD (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." with Down to Earth which passes WP:MUSIC and hence passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Littleton Chorale[edit]

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

Choir fails the GNG. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG or the more specific guideline for musical groups, Wikipedia:Notability (music). Google news archive is not easy to find these days, but a search of it showed only a few "Upcoming local events" entries in local papers, trivial coverage which do not satisfy the notability requirements of Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hart (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC) As a 40 year member of the metro Denver music scene, Littleton Chorals is indeed worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia.[reply]

In an attempt to bolster a worthy category - Denver Area Choruses, and to make meaningful additions to other local categories - such as Music of Denver, Colorado, it is important that we provide depth for the long standing, established, musical organizations in Denver.

I am sorry that the reviewer did not find enough "upcoming local events" to satisfy himself/herself. But, of course, like most volunteer community choruses the Littleton Chorale only performs 10 performances of 5 major concerts per year, plus 5 additional supplemental concerts to bolster the local chorale scene. A quick Google Search shows several notices of recent concerts:

Western Welcome Week
Doc Mehl's appearance schedule
Soaring Voices Flying Fingers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Hart (talk • contribs) 01:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its not the "upcoming local events" that would make this article suitable for Wikipedia, its a real claim to what we call notability. Here at Wikipedia, we have the "general notability guideline". I encourage you to read that, and decide for yourself if your choir passes that test. I realize this may seem like a harsh standard, but it is absolutely necessary for keeping the junk (not that this is junk by any means :) out of Wikipedia. Thank you for your time, Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization."

Well maybe we'll hear some other opinions - particularly from people who have been instrumental in documenting and recording the other similar groups from all over the world. You and I could go back and forth without ever changing the others opinion an iota.

I would point out similar organizations already in Wikipedia - such as Idaho Gateway Chorus and Ars Nova Singers and you would respond that the inclusion of other similar groups is not sufficient to qualify the inclusion of a respected, long standing organization such as the Littleton Chorale. Al Hart (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, the key there is "sources must be reliable". The standard for being considered a RS is pretty high, and the three websites you listed earlier are trivial mentions in possibly non-reliable sources. Also, as to the other articles, note that they are honestly in pretty bad shape - not something you wanna compare yourself too. Neither of them really establishes their notability either. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 02:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "This article should be kept because there are other similar articles about organizations with no better claim of notability?" That argument is discussed and dismissed in the essay WP:OTHERSTUFF. At the same time, I state my firm conviction that community bands, chorales, and orchestras are a wonderful part of life, a point of pride for the musicians and their family, friends, and members of the local community in the audience. The world is a better place because these volunteers pour their hearts out in diligently practiced and rehearsed renditions of difficult musical numbers. But the same type of argument might be made for a nonnotable softball league, high school athletic team, community theatre performance, or other amateur recreational program. It needs significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources to satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, not just our feeling that it involves good people working hard at something they care deeply about which makes their community a more cultured place. If I had to live in Littleton, I would be glad that this chorale was there. I might audition for it. But that does not entitle it to a Wikipedia article. Edison (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't find much notable coverage on Google, Google News and Yahoo aside from ticket websites and a small mention here.SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the coverage in reliable sources to meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep <Insert stupid Wikipedia acronyms here>. James470 (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL'd at your edit summary, although those "stupid Wikipedia acronyms" help others understand your reasons a lot better. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Hudima[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NHOCKEY. Art-top (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template removed by author - User:Marcel Hudima. --Art-top (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second remove warning template after notice on user talk page. --Art-top (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources for player. Cite links in article did not reference player, only teams and no mention of player. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless the Moldovian hockey league is adequate to meet criterion #1 of WP:NHOCKEY, which I don't think it is. Rlendog (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. If Hudima played in the Turkish Ice Hockey Super League, not the Turkish Ice Hockey First League, he would be notable. --Hockeyben ^✉ 18:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per A7 by Fox (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starrf[edit]

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

Non-notable blog-ish thing. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete blog with absolutely no notability whatsoever. I also have tagged for A7. Safiel (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better idea...I can't think why I didn't do that first. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per A7 and G12 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Sharks[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and the GNG Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The text appears to have been copied from a biography on the band's website (G12?), and even if it wasn't, I can't find any coverage for the subject in independent, reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 05:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S.S. Todi Calcio[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG, non-notable amateur sports team. Article entirely unsourced. Cerejota (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting question: for a professional sport, are teams in the top level amateur league in the country notable? I think it's agreed the player's wouldn't be, but I am simply not sure about this. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an article that doesn't indicate why it's notable, like many other articles on Serie D teams. Todi has never reached professional status. I support the deletion and should be considered also the deletion of other articles. CapPixel (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - source added to verify existence + the claim that this team plays in Serie D, which is enough to meet WP:FOOTYN. And to answer DGG - yes, amateur teams are notable. Giant Snowman 15:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"All the teams that have played in the national cup are notable" etc.... Todi hasn't played in the Coppa Italia. CapPixel (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article completely rewritten with added notes. It is now equal to those of the other teams of Serie D: then if this is deleted, should be also be half that of Serie D. In Wikipedia teams of Serie D have always been encyclopedic: or all or none.--93.56.240.111 (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddy, where did you find on wikipedia policies that? Yes, half of the articles about Serie D teams should be deleted, I completely agree. CapPixel (talk)

I agree, non-notable Series D articles should be deleted. Those notable teams (such as those who win a Championship) have a better chance of being kept, but I think claims that "All Series D teams are notable" are not supported by the existing notability policies. Arguments that "All series D" must be kept are clueless on notability. That is a ridiculous argument, like saying "All respected amateur organizations should be kept", what are we, a sports magazine? --Cerejota (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, as it's an obscure club with no significant media coverage. Fails WP:FOOTYN, because they never participated in the Coppa Italia. Their website only claims a victory in the Coppa Italia Dilettanti (translated by Google Translate, so it could be wrong), but i couldn't verify it in a third-party source, and i'm not even sure if the Coppa Italia Dilettanti can be classified as a national cup. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 08:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The teams of Serie D have always been considered encyclopedic. So before you delete some random you have to establish new criteria, valid for all teams, to be encyclopedic. Will be cleared only after, the teams that did not comply.--93.56.241.51 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We such criteria, WP:GNG. Amateurs teams not wholly notable, some are, some are not. This one isn't.--Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. IP, you can't vote two times. ;) As you can read in wikipedia policies, most Serie D teams (such as Todi) do not deserve an article. CapPixel (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The teams of Serie D have always been considered encyclopedic." Based on what? Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 05:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also this year, as well as in other years, each team of Serie D has its own page. Todi plays this year in series D: because it must be the only of 168 teams not to have the page? Teams do not encyclopedic should be deleted all together. But before we should establish the criteria equal for all teams.--93.56.241.51 (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered on which criterion/criteria you base that presuming notability of this article. Also read WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING, so you can avoid your above kind of argument in a deletion discussion. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 09:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the spirit of WP:FOOTYN, which is what we follow rather than the letter. That guideline is written in a way that allows amateur clubs at the tenth level of English football to be considered notable, and this club plays at the fifth level of Italian football. Are Italian clubs really so much less notable than English clubs as to allow such a large disparity? The fact that cup competitions in various countries have vastly different entry requirements shouldn't dictate our decisions about which articles to include. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, i could write an article about my neighbourhood's team, which plays in the Delta Ethniki. Because, if an local English amateur club at the tenth level of English football is notable, why should a team playing in the fourth level of Greek football not be considered notable as well? See? That doesn't make sense. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is all nice, but in the end, it justifies ignoring guidelines. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does that not make sense? The cut-off level for Greece would be somewhat higher than for England or Italy, as it is a much smaller country, but it is perfectly sensible for us to have articles on clubs playing at the fourth level, and, in fact, if you follow your link to the league's article you will see that we do. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Serie D is a national championship and not regional. In fact it is assigned every year the Scudetto Dilettanti. They are not encyclopedic only the teams who have played only in Eccellenza, that is a regional championship or lower. --93.56.241.113 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, kiddy... based on what? By the way, your vote is going to be counted as one. CapPixel (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:G11 Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoodPop[edit]

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

While it is true that local news might show notability, it does not appear to in this case. My searches only reveal local news, customer reviews, and nothing more. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't even find these in my local supermarket. –BuickCentury Driver 22:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - G7 by admin Explicit (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Leaked JoJo songs[edit]

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

Not an appropriate article for an encyclopedia. — Status {^talk_contribs 21:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really any sources for this, and it reads more like a 'list of tracks rejected for new JoJo album' than "leaked" songs. Nate • (chatter) 22:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If any of these were worth notice it could easily be incorporated into the primary article. I'm not sure the wisdom of breaking out discographies for every artist let alone subset lists like this. Shadowjams (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shadowjams said it perfectly. Exactly what I was thinking. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 02:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is not a substitute for the old diditleak.co.uk website. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 01:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netanya Market bombing[edit]

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

I'm not seeing the continuing coverage that makes this pass WP:EVENT. The only in-depth coverage is from the time of the event, ie. news; the only coverage from more than a little while after is trivial, often in the same breath with a number of other attacks. No evidence of lasting or far-ranging effect, or any of the other EVENT criteria. Tragic, but not encyclopedic. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is not a not a minor criminal incident only mentioned in some local news for a short while - it was a mass-casualty terrorist attack that took place in the heart of a central city in Israel and was committed against a large group of civilians, which has left dozens of people injured and killed. I really do not understand why anyone might think this is a trivial event. The event received an extensive coverage in the mainstream media at the time like all the other major militant attacks carried out against Israeli targets during the Second intifada militancy campaign. In addition, it is worth noting that the terror attacks which occurred during in the Second intifada had a great impact on Israel's policy regarding prevention of potential terror attacks (see History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict#2000-2005: Second Intifada and Israeli West Bank barrier) and on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the article's subject was widely covered and satisfies GNG, and essentially also WP:EVENT. This article is not about a crime, accident, death, etc., but a suicide terrorist attack that got plenty of international coverage. It is my belief that all multi-casualty events (in this case, about 60 casualties) are inherently notable, as are most successful suicide bombings. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (events) and per WP:NOTNEWS. A bomb killed three people and seriously injured a few more, with minor injuries to additional persons, due to one person with an explosive belt. There was no major retaliation. In the context of the Israli-Palestinian conflict, this seems a rather sadly common news event, without enduring consequences except for those directly involved. Edison (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - to delete would fail the Buzaglo test. --Sreifa (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, what? This appears to be completely irrelevant, and even if it were otherwise, it's not Wikipedia policy. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I.e., if a bomb attack killed three and injured 59 in London, it would not be nominated for deletion. --Sreifa (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, in Wikipedia policy this problem is known as WP:Systemic Bias. Marokwitz (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - In London, this doesn't happen every day, so it's more likely to have lasting effects or to be discussed years later. (See, for example, 7 July 2005 London bombings, which resulted in the pound falling to a 19-month low against the dollar; this article on the 2007 UK terrorist incidents; Warrington bomb attacks, which resulted in the Irish government's changing their extradition policy and which have plenty of coverage outside of the initial news cycle.) In Israel, this is depressingly common, one individual attack rarely has lasting effects on policy, and it's not necessary to have an article on every bombing - Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —24.23.193.232 (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Event had significant national impact on Israel and was very widely covered by diverse sources, both in Israel and abroad, furthermore the event was discussed later in retrospective by many sources, for example in the book "The Palestine Liberation Organization: Terrorism and Prospects for Peace in the Holy Land" published in 2011, by Daniel Baracskay. Therefore it satisfies the most strict requirements of WP:EVENT. Marokwitz (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not appear to be true; searching said book for "Netanya" brings up a number of attacks, but not this one. (Unless the attack mentioned on page 153 is supposed to be this one, in which case it's a. a trivial mention anyway b. so inaccurate as to be completely worthless as a source - he says five people were killed and over one hundred injured.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, you are wrong, the book says 3 were killed and 59 injured. p.155. This is just a quick example to demonstrate that the attack has historical significance and is not merely news. Marokwitz (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bah, I missed that one - I saw the first hit on the page for "Netanya" and that was it. However, the mention is equally trivial, so this doesn't address my deletion rationale, where I already pointed out that all recent coverage is trivial and in the same breath with a bunch of other attacks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The existence of ongoing coverage in scholarly books nearly ten years later is more than enough in order to prove this event was not merely a "breaking news" with no historical significance. WP:EVENT doesn't an require in depth coverage for an infinite duration, this would be an absurd requirement. Marokwitz (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As aptly explained by Marokwitz. The fact that wars keep on repeating themselves does not make them any less then notable. Despite the generic nature of the name of the incident, substantial sources have been procured proving the long-lasting notability of the incident. Another wasteful afd.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are these that allegedly prove the lasting notability of the incident? No one has found anything more than a trivial mention in a long list of incidents. Significant coverage is absent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage? This happened more than ten years ago. I'm surprised editors managed to find enough sources to verify this specific attack as it was one of at least hundred during those short years. I think its smart to fill up List of Palestinian suicide attacks with actual articles rather than leaving the ugly redlinks. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, if it weren't for the bolded "Keep" at the beginning I'd have thought this was a delete argument. No significant coverage after the fact, paucity of sources, basically a routine event... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A routine event? Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's typical for Wikipedia. The only encyclopedia where minor characters in computer games are considered more notable and encyclopedic, than a "routine" suicide attack discussed by hundreds of news sources and dozens of academic sources over a timeframe of nearly 10 years. Terrorist attacks with significant national or international press coverage are inherently notable. Keeping this article serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference. Marokwitz (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - waste of AfD space..per Markowitz reasonings..--BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per Marokwitz. another misapplication of WP:EVENT--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shabir Tanoli[edit]

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

A Pakistani educator and activist. Unable to find any sources about him. Can't find the references that is listed in the article. Article says he is studying for his PhD. NOTE: His full name is Muhammad Shabir Khan Tanoli. People often leave off Muhammad when using their name. Tried searching under various different name combinations. Bgwhite (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Verifiability also not apparent. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see anything notable on Google, Google News and Yahoo, so clearly the article hasn't assumed notability.SwisterTwister talk 03:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No clear indication of scholarly significance.--BlueonGray (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Hope[edit]

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

A football agent. Unable to find any sources about him. There are sources about players he represents that mention him or have a quote from him. Appears to be an agent less than a year. 90%+ of sources list footballers Jaime Navarro or Rohit Chand as players he represents. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jud Lew[edit]

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

This is basically an unsourced biography. My search failed to find good sources showing why this person is notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This text provides a critical analysis of his manuscript which for a 15th century writer would make me think of notablility. Agathoclea (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article you mentioned is about Master Ott's wrestling and says Jud Lew's document is affiliated. That doesn't show notability to me, unless you're claiming that the two people are the same and I see no proof of that. I'm also not sure this document shows Master Ott's wrestling is notable--only that an old manuscript survived. Jakejr (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing support for notability claims. Actually, I don't see notability claims except for being a martial arts teacher and author. There's a lack of documentation showing this person or his art is historically significant. Papaursa (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Joseph Fox 09:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one television DVDs of 2011 (UK)[edit]

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

Not every chart needs a list of #1s. It's an indiscriminate collection of information, especially when it is limited to such a particular small sub-section of overall DVD sales. The chart itself should have some notability as well, and it gets barely a mention in UK Video Charts. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to TV --Frankonno (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Comics[edit]

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

Fails WP:Articles_with_a_single_source which calls for mutiple secondary sources. Sole source provided is a primary source which doesn't suggest notability. Fails Wikipedia:No one really cares as no one really cares about some non notable comic ditrubution company. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING as the article only exists to advertise about comics. Fails WP:PROMOTION as it is linked by User:Nat Gertler and is clearly used to promote his business. JusticeSonic (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not created nor edited by me, nor to the best of my knowledge by anyone connected to About Comics. A page does not become promotion by being linked to by someone related to it. The "single source" claim refers to articles that can only be cited to a single source, which is not the case for this; there are sources such as this at the comics news portal comicon.com and this at ComicMix, and this at the Publishers Weekly site, just to pick a couple quick examples; I will not add those sources myself due to WP:COI. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to not be notable (WP:N) in particular in its notability as a business (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). and appears to fall short here as well WP:NOTADVERTISING. It is possible the author could correct these problems with further article development.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers Weekly isn't an independent reliable secondary source? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One listing does not make it notable. To be notable the company needs to be fairly large, well known and have some length of time in business (measured in decades). --User:Warrior777 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, not only does Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) not support your claim of what is required for a company to be notable, it specifically disagrees with it. On being fairly large: "smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." On being well-known: "'Notable' is not synonymous with 'fame'". And as for age, the articles linked to above - you'll find that there are multiple articles, not just Publishers Weekly - were built around the 10th anniversary of About Comics, which was years back... so yes, the age of the organization is indeed measured in decades. Not, mind you, that any such requirement is found in the notability guidelines; Wikipedia has articles on hundreds of newer companies. Additionally, you state that "It is possible the author could correct these problems with further article development." As per WP:DEL#CONTENT, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

Depth of coverage

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.

Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[3]

Wikipedia:Notability

Notability requires verifiable evidence

The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable.

No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

What is needed is more secondary and tertiary sources from reliable references. Can they be provided posthaste? Significant, to me means in volume --User:Warrior777 (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look more closely at "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Note that "if". The Publishers Weekly piece is not an aside comment, it is a full, reasonable length article specifically on the topic; "significance" does not rest on count, although there certainly are other ones... as with the ones I listed above. The comicon.com article is from a non-self-published specialty site of long and respected standing (now past its glory days, admittedly). Much of the other coverage that one finds online, such as mentions of About Comics founding 24 Hour Comics Day in the Austin American Statesmen, Rocky Mountain News, and other papers, or mentions within discussing About Comics publications, as in the Telegraph-Herald.

(And as a note sheerly regarding procedure, so far, no one claims to have shown that such sources do not exist. The call for deletion was done with accusation but no evidence.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a user who claims he had no part in creating this page, I find your spirited defense of it remarkable. I am not suggesting for a second that you actually created this article, but I think it is relevant that the person who did, User:CarolineWH, was banned.JusticeSonic (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't just claim that I did not create the page; you can look at the edit history and see that I did not edit it. You can look at the talk page and see that I, in accordance with guidelines, did direct editors to sources that they could use if they wished to fill out the page, and see that those messages were overlooked and the sources not used, which would not be the case if I were either editing it myself or controlling the edits in some way. You can look at my edit history and see that I am an editor with years of service here and a respectable track record. And as for the relevancy of who creates something, you may note that the editor who started this AfD with its unsourced claims and misunderstanding of the guidelines is a WP:SPA, whose every previous edit had to do with a single film (Marianne (2011 film) ), and whose AfD on my company;s article only popped up after I had started an AfD regarding an article on an actress who appears in that film.

Would I prefer that About Comics continue to have an article? Yes. But as a Wikipedian, would I prefer that the deletion of this or any article not be grounded in false claims and non-existent guideline criteria? Yes. I have spent time on various AfDs trying to keep them on the straight path. If you have some problem with my contributions to this AfD in the matter of clarifying what the actual guidelines are and in pointing to sources for establishing notability, please raise specific objection. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, your statement that "every previous edit had to do with a single film" is false. I have made edits on other pages, including Phil Cleary and Dyson_Hore-Lacy.

JusticeSonic (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, you are correct, I was misreading the order on the "earliest edits" page. So only the previous 60-some edits you'd made, including every previous edit you'd made during 2011, was on the subject of Marianne. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nat Gertler. No need to merge, no need to keep a separate article, because the entire contents of this article are already there. I've looked for sources, including the ones mentioned above, and haven't found sources that would meet the WP:NOTABILITY standard for a separate article on this topic. Rangoondispenser (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A full story in PW is enough to make any publisher notable. It's the major source in the subject. The quality of the sourcing needs to be taken into account--interpreting "multiple" literally is sometimes absurd. I would not have said this had it mere a mere notice, or a routine paragraph. Publisher articles are frequently criticised here because of lack of secondary sources specifically about he publisher, and the notability needs to be inferred from the publications. Here, when we actually do have a reliable secondary source, where the major publication thinks the 10 yr anniversary newsworthy enough for a major story, it certainly qualifies. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That About Comics received a feature story in Publishers Weekly (WebCite link) indisputably establishes that it is notable. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clancy's Tavern[edit]

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

No cover art or track listing. Only information is about release date and its lead-off single. Not scheduled to be released until the end of October. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No need to delete album article by a notable artist. Let the article snowball. If there is not enough coverage for a stand alone article, merge until the article can be expanded further. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until more content is available. I've tried redirecting three times but the author (Another Believer) won't let me, so it's odd that he's suggesting a merge now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I only reverted your re-direct once and another contributor reverted the most recent re-direct. My preference would be to let the stub be left alone for expansion, but between re-directing and deleting I'd prefer the former. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly notable artist, single from the album was released in June and is on the charts (#9 country song at Billboard currently), citations to major sources about upcoming release. -Pete (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: the Wikipedia:Notability (music) suggests that album title, track listing, and release date being announced by the artist or label may be enough to establish notability. I see there is a track listing here, but it's unsourced. Linking a good source from that may be helpful in establishing a clear basis for a decision. -Pete (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ECamp[edit]

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

A completely unnotable article, of a merchandising nature, about a summer camp with 100-200 participants. Has notability template since January 2010. Tomer T (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ORG. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The camp is probably nice, but the only reliable external source in the article is a very short JPost article and this is far from enough. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve. After researching this online I have come to the surprising conclusion that this camp is notable, despite the current style of the article. It is covered non trivially by major Israeli and Jewish publications independent of the subject and therefore passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. See for example the following sources,
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4] (In Hebrew)

[5] Marokwitz (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archived urls of the sources from WebCite for future reference:
1. http://www.webcitation.org/61GpSIlHz
2. http://www.webcitation.org/61GpTNYNX
3. http://www.webcitation.org/61GpTndV1
4. http://www.webcitation.org/61GpUjEB3
5. http://www.webcitation.org/61GpW7xFC
Cunard (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per sources procured by Marokwitz above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...keep. By 3 of the sources provided by Marokwitz I would have to say this meets ORG. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by Marokwitz, ranging from the Haaretz to The Jerusalem Post, establish that ECamp passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. Quite a few of the sources seem to be based on interviews with someone with a title not normally associated with a summer camp and/or a student, which makes me think they're influenced by a publicist. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G7 Records Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no signficant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; none of the artists in its portfolio are notable per WP:MUSICBIO; ~~borderline WP:SPAM~~ Gurt Posh (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The below was posted on WT:AFD. I've moved it here so that Mmwater won't have to repost it. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 02:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The G7 Records Inc. article that I posted has been marked for deletion. Apparently Wikipedia has found several issues I have had with meeting the guidelines. I have included more links to support it and have attempted to write in a more encyclopedic style, but I am willing to further improve it. Please understand that the article is in no way created with promotional intent, however it has been flagged for appearing to promote G7 Records Inc.. I created the article because it is informative and the subject is significant to Canadian hip-hop. Nevertheless, I am a new editor and I am eager to learn more on Wikipedia that will help me improve any articles that I create or edit. If anyone is able to assist in improving the article or provide me with useful tips it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Mmwater (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've re-written it to tone down the promotional language, so the only outstanding issue now is notability: I haven't found anything online yet to indicate its notability apart from its association with one notable band: one solution could be to merge to Ghetto Concept, as it was launched by one of their members and appears to remain closely associated with the band. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ghetto Concept as per Gurt until notability is established on its own. ArcAngel (talk) ) 11:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia C2-06[edit]

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references indicating notability. Wikipedia is not a catalog of every gadget ever offered for sale. Edison (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep non-notability not established by AfD submitter. --Kvng (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V as unsourced, and WP:N as containing no references to substantial coverages by independent reliable sources. Sandstein 05:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson Yari[edit]

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable product. A search of Google News archives yields numerous articles about the subject, references to three of which I have added to the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this meets WP:N. While not all mobile phones are notable, this certainly generated enough coverage to warrant keeping this article. this list demonstrates that current consensus seems to allow most mobile phones to have their own articles, given there are appropriate sources available. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why re-list? It's a clear keep: the sources have been added and there are no valid delete rationales.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep non-notability not established by AfD submitter. --Kvng (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Hart (Neurologist)[edit]

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

Article makes some limited claims of notability, but they do not seem to meet WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 13:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The medical obituary which I've added as a reference into the article describes him as "a nationally recognised expert" who produced "impressive academic results" and "delivered prestigious invited lectures in the UK and overseas". AllyD (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Munk's roll article will describe the deceased in a positive, obituary-type style. He was a hard-working specialist. None of his achievements are sufficient to qualify for WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - several users have expressed concerns about notability. A quick scan through the page history will show that it was initially made speedy, then PRODded and a notability tag applied. JFW | T@lk 22:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the cited bibliography is trivial for establishing notability, I would consider thatBMJ coupled with his record of high impact publications (three with >100 citations as first author) should suffice.Novangelis (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The citation data is fully sufficient to show notability according to WP:PROF. High citation counts are more frequent in medical science than elsewhere, but even so this is a record showing him an authority in his subject. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Kept. Consensus is clear that the subject meets the basic requirements of the general notability guideline for multiple reasons, especially as an author, and that this is verified sufficiently to retain the article and improve it. Steven Walling • talk 23:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D Foy[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A Google search suggests they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added an interview at perl.com, which I consider a reliable source about perl. Francis Bond (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An interview isn't really independent. It's not quite the same as if the subject simply self-published but it's not arms-length independence, either. Also, the perl.com site is Tom Christiansen's site; this isn't a reliable news source. It's a commercial site owned by someone who makes his living from Perl. If there's only one article offered in support of notability, I think it should be more than just this interview. Msnicki (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." From [Wikipedia:RS] In my opinion both perl.com and the Perl review are reliable according to this criteria. Francis Bond (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources can be reliable at establishing the facts they report. They cannot be used to establish notability. Reliability is never a substitute for independence in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also the excellent argument posted today by User:Kww at Wikipedia talk:Notability#It's a part of WP:V, not just WP:N pointing out that "Articles based on primary sources and sources related to the material (even if secondary sources) violate fundamental Wikipedia policies, not guidelines." Msnicki (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2011

Keep "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field." The books alone are sufficient for this. Would references to examples of those books being considered the authoritative reference works on Perl help? Pudge (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was wide recognition of his contribution to the enduring historical record in his field, I think we should be able to find people who say that. No one has. Reviews of his books are not a substitute; they may establish that his books are notable but the most any review usually has to say about the author is his name. From the opening paragraph at WP:N, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Msnicki (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I think we should be able to find people who say that. No one has." Utterly false. People say it all the time. Just because you didn't find any, doesn't mean they don't exist. More to the point, however, he clearly -- indisputably -- has "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." That's the end of story, frankly. I've seen dozens of reviews on Learning Perl and Mastering Perl. Pudge (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relevant guideline is WP:AUTHOR, and foy clearly qualifies under item #3: "The person has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Msnicki's comments above seem to ignore this guideline, which suggests that he or she is not familiar with the relevant policies. —Mark Dominus (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've omitted part of the sentence and I think that changed the meaning. What it says is, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I think the emphasis here is on the collective body of work and on the significance of the work. I don't think this contemplates a half-dozen how-to books, even if a couple were reviewed. But also, this point has been discussed twice very recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), at 1, in the context of some arguments that came up in the (similar situation) Jesse Liberty AfD and at 2 in rejecting a proposal that simply being published should be sufficient to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the emphasis is on "collective body of work". It says "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work". I do not understand why you suppose that the part after "or" is emphasized over the part before "or". I do not see any emphasis in either direction. I agree that simply being published is insufficient to establish notability, but I don't see the relevance to this discussion for two reasons: The work in question is, as the guideline requires, "the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", and second, because proposed policies, whether accepted or rejected, do not supersede current policy. —Mark Dominus (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can agree to disagree. By your argument, anyone who wrote anything that got at least two reviews is notable. I don't think that was the intention. Only one of the books, the most introductory, Learning Perl, appears to have even been reviewed at all. No sources are cited in the articles about his other books, so I'm not sure they're at all notable, even assuming that could establish the notability of the author. I expect more. I expect sources that actually offer the significant coverage about the subject. Msnicki (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have assumed, without checking, that Learning Perl is in fact the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. My !vote depends on this being the case. —Mark Dominus (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible Learning Perl has been reviewed elsewhere, but having clicked through the links in the article, this is the only citation offered in the article that might establish notability and, frankly, if this is all there is, I'd argue that's not enough to establish notability for the book, never mind the author. Msnicki (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around and Googling, it looks to me like Mastering Perl may be notable, even though the article doesn't look at all promising. I was able to find minor mentions here and there, not enough to establish notability or even to bother listing, but enough of them to suggest that if someone was diligent, maybe it's out there. I wasn't able to find anything on Intermediate Perl; I don't think that one is promising, so I have nominated it to Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intermediate Perl, though I also corrected the article to add Foy's name as an author if it stays. Msnicki (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you like Not that I care if I'm in Wikipedia, but the books are the least of my many contributions to Perl. If you want to delete me, don't argue about the books. It's a stupid thing to argue about. Argue that the article sucks and no one cares enough to make it any good, making it unworthy of Wikipedia. Delete it for being low-quality despite whatever you might think of my contributions to Perl. You don't need any wikilawyering to say the article is bad as written. -- brian d foy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.56.172 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on your notability is irrelevant. Pudge (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like notability have a more technical meaning on WP than people expect from ordinary usage. Notability isn't about whether the subject seems notable. Here, it's all and only about whether individuals not connected to the subject have actually taken note and that they've done it in reliable sources. Sometimes that will seem unfair that we'll delete otherwise good stuff just because it didn't have sources. But it comes directly from two of Wikipedia's pillars: No original research WP:NOR and the threshold for inclusion is verifiability WP:VERIFY, not truth. Once notability has been established, primary sources can be used to fill in other facts and other content. As a rule of thumb, a couple decent magazine or newspaper articles (but not an interview and not a blog) are all it takes to clear the notability hurdle. It would be helpful to know of anything like that that's been overlooked. But please see also, Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. Msnicki (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple major books on a subject are sufficient for notability . As for low quality, we do not delete for that because it's fixable. Wikipedia is a work in progress. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Kept. Consensus is clear that subject meets general notability requirements beyond the event mentioned in the biography, especially as an author. Steven Walling • talk 02:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randal L. Schwartz[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The one independent source cited discusses his arrest and conviction for hacking but this is WP:ONEEVENT. Msnicki (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the argument for deletion of Schwartz's entry should carry the day, it would be very clear that Wikipedia's deletion/BLP criteria are even more out of touch with reality than observers popularly claim. This person has written works important to the programming community - I'm looking at the copy of Learning Perl sitting on my bookshelf right now. Imagine a reader should like to find out more about the author of the book he just read and enjoyed, only to discover that that author does not exist on Wikipedia. How would this situation benefit anyone save the more legalistically-minded editors? Wikipedia exists for the world's convenience, not yours. I'm not sure how this argument even got started, but please, for the sake of sanity, don't carry it much further. If you feel the quality of the article is poor, improve it. Deletion isn't helpful. Quality is. Roufeov (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm surprised he isn't more notable, but it could be we are close enough in the computer industry that I run into his work and postings frequently. No substantive entries in Google Scholar, and the first two pages of Google Search are his own website, postings, or social networking. —EncMstr (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to observe: we don't source articles in WP by doing a Google search, looking at the first two pages, and saying "nope, no reliable sources here". That argument doesn't work in AfD when someone points out all the Google hits their Tulsa blues rock band got, and it doesn't work the opposite direction either. Again: even a casual look at Google News Search finds plenty of sourcing for Schwartz; he's more than notable, he's *notorious*. Newmadrid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Six books on the Perl computing language + conviction and expungement of same for hacking doesn't make him notable?Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. This point has been discussed twice very recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) in a discussion of changing the rules for authors based on arguments that came up in the (similar situation) Jesse Liberty AfD and in rejecting a proposal that simply being published should be sufficient to establish notability. Notability is not about whether someone seems notable. It is all and only about whether people who have no connection to the subject actually take note and that they do it in reliable sources. Msnicki (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Randall Schwartz's books are widely reviewed (see the Google News link above) and he has a well known algorithm named after him. I think this is sufficient evidence that people have taken note and definitely invalidates any argument that he is only famous for the hacking incident. If the only problem is lack of sources, just add them, please don't waste our time with an AFD. Francis Bond (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of an author and the notability of his works are two different things. You can have one without the other. The reviews are of his books, not discussions of the author. All they tell about the author is his name. It's possible those reviews justify articles about his books, but they do not justify an article about him. Msnicki (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I made my argument clear. In addition to being a well published author and columnist, Randall Schwartz has an algorithm named after him, and is also noted for being involved in a fairly well publicized hacking trial. The combination of these makes him notable, even if you argue that any single one does not. Francis Bond (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the guidelines. His own books and his own columns are useless for establishing notability because they're not independent. His transform (really just a Perl idiom, not a new algorithm) may be notable (I somewhat doubt it is), but that's not the same as saying he's notable. Again, the notability of an individual and the notability of his work are two different things.

I agreed (above, in my nomination) that coverage of his arrest and conviction was reported in reliable independent sources, but this is WP:ONEEVENT and it happens to be one of disrepute that has since been expunged; it would certainly not be fair to the subject to base a WP:BLP on that. (Since the expungement, he's been legally entitled to say "no" on employment applications to questions about previous convictions. But by reporting it here, we're ensuring it never really goes away, that it will always be easy to find and will continue to follow him.) Msnicki (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misinterpreting the point of WP:1E. The idea is not that the encyclopedia shouldn't cover "single events" (that's a nonsensical idea, inasmuch as 9/11 is also "one event". The idea is that where there's a competing interest in an article about the event and an article about the subject, tie goes to the event. But there's no such competition here. The article on Schwartz is the logical, encyclopedic venue for coverage of the Intel hacking case, which was monumentally important during the '90s and covered extensively, not just in the WP:LOCALFAME -prone tech press but in the mainstream media, and not just during the events and the trial but for years afterwards. Again: I think you should let this one go; I feel like we may all be spinning our wheels here. Newmadrid (talk)

Keep: Same justification as Francis Bond. The article needs more attention to Schwartz's notability; lack of detail on Wikipedia does not constitute lack of notability. -- ke4roh (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the article wasn't too content filled earlier, as it stands right now it seems fine. Schwartz has been extensively covered in the press. Ryan (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Subject of article has canvassed for article to be kept - see this tweet.--A bit iffy (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This isn't even worth discussing. Randal L. Schwartz is a celebrity in the Perl and Smalltalk communities and is more than notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Just to provide one more citation to support this, he's a speaker at the 2011 OSCON conference. See: http://www.oscon.com/oscon2011/profile/4443 OSCON is an important conference in the software world and they don't invite just anybody to speak. If we look at the criteria for notability of creative professionals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Creative_professionals We see The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. which is clearly the case with Schwartz, and also The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.. Schwartz' books have clearly received significant critical attention. In short, Randal Schwartz is clearly notable if we follow Wikipedia guidelines. Sprhodes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It seems to me that the significant contribution contemplated in that section is a genuine contribution to knowledge, some real scholarly research as described at WP:SCHOLAR, not just a bunch of how-to manuals. Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline doesn't state that, and I personally reject that interpretation; as I see no evidence to support the idea that such was the intent. To me, this argument sounds like a deletionist leaning on their own subjective interpretation in order to further an agenda. And in any case, a person only has to meet one of the criteria to be consider notable, as I understand it. And Schwartz clearly passes the The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors test... the OSCON invitation alone justifies that. And when you look at the weight of all the evidence taken together, rather than nit-picking it looking for a reason to delete the article, it's more than obvious that this article belongs here.Sprhodes (talk)

Nonsense. I rely not on my personal opinion but upon WP:CONSENSUS. The question of whether a bunch of how-to books are sufficient to establish notability has been discussed twice recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people); I gave the links (1 and 2); did you read them or would that get in the way of calling me names? Msnicki (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote above, or were you too busy scrabbling around desperately looking for a way to justify some pedantic argument for deleting this article? Never mind, don't bother answering, because we all already know the answer. After all, if you read what I wrote, you'd notice that I never suggested that we fall back on "being published alone establishes notability." You're also conspicuously avoiding where I pointed out that Schwartz easily meets two of the criteria for Creative Professionals, when meeting even one is enough to establish notability. Sprhodes (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is ridiculous. Is Wikipedia going to become a home for only people notable to the lowest common denominator group of general civilians? Randal is incredibly notable by every standard within his community; the large and wide-spread Perl community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattgrommes (talk • contribs) 01:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Then it should be easy to suggest a couple sources WP:RS offering the significant coverage of the subject (not just of his books) as required to establish that his notability meets WP:GNG, not just your own sense of subjective importance WP:FACTORS. Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schwartz has been written about in the New York Times and on CNN; the front page of the 1990-1999 Google News Search shows a story from each, multiple years apart. It's good that you raised the point that this article needs improvement, but even a casual glance turns up reliable sources of the highest order for this particular topic, and I think you should let this one go. Also: the WP:1E cite here doesn't hold up; an article about Schwartz is the reasonable, encyclopedic place to cover the story of Randal Schwartz hacking into Intel.

I think the friends-of-Randal-Schwartz "guardians" of this page (see talk) have done the article a disservice by vigorously expunging the material that best establishes Schwartz' relevance. It's not surprising to see that the result appears NN. But the subject clearly is. Newmadrid (talk) (former WP'er, anon) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Randal is a renowned technical author, a long time host of a very popular talk-show and a very active member of the free software community, as pointed out above many times. --Rbanffy (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of which constitute policy-based reasons to keep. Msnicki (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here is a long list of reliable sources covering the trial. Jfire (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The trial or his influential books alone convince me this should not be deleted. AndresMonroyHernandez (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: User:Jfire's sourcing alone should merit a speedy keep, but even if it wasn't enough to have a decade-long cite record in top tier news outlets, the subject is also the author of extremely popular programming books. Note that even the sole "delete" argument as of this posting admits to knowing who Schwartz is, and being surprised not to be able to find sourcing (as noted above, he didn't try very hard). Newmadrid (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to stay out of this, as it seems to be quickly turning into a war, but I'd like to point out to those who wish to defend the reputation of Mr. Schwartz that the references you add *must* follow the guidelines of WP:V. I don't believe that the consensus of this discussion will be delete (it needs some really good references,) but if it is, I highly doubt it will be because, as some on Hacker News have suggested, that it's because he's 'too old' or from a generation the editors on Wikipedia cannot relate to. I would also like to remind Mr. Schwartz that suggesting your followers to come here and defend this article may seem like a good idea, but it makes you seem (no offense intended) somewhat biased and maybe a bit emotional about it, although I can certainly understand that as it's an article about you. Just remember that it's not *your* article. Also, if people here wish to complain that this is the reason why Wikipedia is 'bad' or 'jumped the shark', remember that if it weren't for the ability to have your voice heard, you wouldn't be able to argue at all. --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 02:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a dog in this race. However, I suspect people who know me as a notable person do. Hence the call to action. It's not an attempt to bias the discussion: it's an attempt to have people who consider me notable to speak up. If that's not fair, I'm confused. Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, no problem with that. What is troublesome is those who do have a dog is this race. Those are the people who IMHO should not be the voice of majority in this discussion. --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 02:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just added multiple references to where Schwartz was identified as an expert or notable figure, and interviewed by numerous media outlets, including well known ones like Dr. Dobbs Journal and InfoQ, as well as some lesser known ones. This alone, not to mention the material that User:Jfire turned up, should put this discussion to rest. Notable, KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprhodes (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources and as such, under the guidelines, not useful to establish notability. However unfair this seems, this really is how the guidelines work. It's not about how notable it seems like the subject should be, it's whether individuals with no connection to the subject actually take note and that they do it in reliable sources. The interviews don't give you the independence. (Here's the giveaway: Who's doing the talking in an interview?) Msnicki (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Author of one of the most popular Perl books. On the boards of major Perl and Smalltalk foundations. Host of what is probably the most widely listened to free and open source podcast. How is this even up for discussion??? Tim.the.bastard (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I think that in this case, since there are no outright "keep" arguments. I'm going to go with the weak consensus and the subject's wishes. Also. Hutchison effect use to be a standalone article but it also looks like it had some BLP issues so it goes too. However, if someone wants to try cleaning it up I'll be glad to userfy it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Hutchison[edit]

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

Mr Hutchinson has emailed in to the Volunteer Response Team (info-en-q at wikimedia.org), asking that this article be deleted on the grounds that it is nonsensical, unsourced and derogatory.The email is available to OTRS volunteers through this link. I am making this request on his behalf.

My own opinion is that the article is poorly sourced for a BLP, and focusses to much on the 'Hutchinson effect', and not enough on the gentleman himself. The gentleman may have unorthodox views, but we should still be sticking to reliable sources when reporting about him. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

move to Hutchison effect (currently a redirect to "John Hutchison"), and copyedit accordingly. The effect is mildly notable, the man not really. - Nabla (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at request of subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and possibly a rename to Hutchison effect - As Nabla said, the effect seems to be notable but there doesn't seem to be a focus on John Hutchison for the person he his. Google, Google News and Yahoo searches didn't show anything for a biography on the man.SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per request by subject. Sources are insufficient quality to create a useful Hutchison effect article from what exists here. --Kvng (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hutchison effect and improve, as per Nabla, as that's what the article seems to focus on anyway. -- œ ^™ 18:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Salmon[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:BIO; unable to find non-trivial reliable sources. Yoninah (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I couldn't find anything indicating any real notability by Wikipedia standards either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search indicated no 3rd party mentions. his only notability is his website and his job at BBC radio.Curb Chain (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eva Braun. Article has already been redirected so let's close it that way. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich "Fritz" Braun[edit]

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

Being Hitler's father in law is not sufficient notability to justify article. There is no indication of notability in his own right. NtheP (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler, the dictator that kill millions of jews and others! Why should we have an article for Eva Braun then? She was his girl friend for years but only married him for a day! Other than that Eva was nothing!!! Being the father-in-law of Adolf Hilter is important because not everyone is the father-in-law of a dictator that tryed to take over the world! --Frankonno (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not necessarily inherited. For comparison, Wikipedia doesn't have, or need, articles about either of Joseph Stalin's fathers-in-law or any of Mao Zedong's fathers-in-law. In fact, I would be surprised to find any significant number of articles about fathers-in-law whose notability derives from the notability of their sons-in-law (as opposed to those who were notable in their own right). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, redirect to Eva Braun. It's an unlikely search term, but redirects are cheap. We can't keep this; the article itself states that his notability is entirely inherited, and there are no sources that are about him. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese, ok I did just that, problem sovled. --Frankonno (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eva Braun, which the page's creator has already done. Fritz Braun is only notable because of his daughter and son-in-law. SilverCityChristmasIsland 23:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no outstanding deletes —SpacemanSpiff 06:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Thi Ladki[edit]

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

Does not seem notable, has but one source to the IMDB Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Imdb cannot be generally considered as a reliable source of reference (WP:IMDB). I really don't think there would be enough material to expand this article into a reliably sourced one. — Finemann (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Schmidt, pointed out, the film has been noted in many reliable sources. Kudos to Schmidt, for such a great effort. Now I guess this article could be expanded properly. — Finemann (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article never tagged for concerns and sent to AFD just three hours after creation. It is not unreasonable to believe that 1949 news coverage, in an India recovering from World War 2, would be a bit difficult to find. However, it has made it into the enduring record. The film is found through a Google book search. In 75 years of Indian cinema the film is among those referred to as "popular and trend-setting films". In Indian cinema: a visual voyage it is stated as "Roop K Shorey's first major hit after he migrated from Lahore". In Biblio it is stated "Roop K. Shourie, he formed a company to produce feature films in Punjabi and Hindi and made the highly successful Ek Thi Ladki." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS--Sodabottle (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Change of vote based on what MQS has found. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to MQS for the support and research. Good point about the fact that 1949 was a time of recovery from World War II. Actually, also, India had just received Independence in 1947 and endured an invasion from Pakistan right after independence.

How do I delete the article "Hindi Movie: Ek Thi ladki (1949)" which I initially created in my user space and then moved? I then created this one being discussed because the one I moved from my user space would never turn up in searches. Apologize for this goof up....this was my first Wikipedia article. Again, we want to keep "Ek Thi Ladki" and, delete "Hindi Movie: Ek Thi ladki (1949)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pareshbh (talk • contribs) 03:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Already relisted often enough. — Joseph Fox 09:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver O'Dea[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria for actors. IMDB lists him as being in one short film, and I can't find verification that he's been in the other films/programmes mentioned. (The other reference given is a dead link.) ... discospinster _talk 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment As an actor, he Fails WP:ENT . Someone on Flicker wrote of him as a former boxer,[6], and I searched and found that his work AS an unbeaten light-middleweight IS sourcable.[7][8] It would seem that as a boxer, he may meet WP:ATH#Boxer. Article needs to be re-written to show THAT notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable actors. Can't provide verifiability to sustain what is written on the article (as such as his appearance on shows and movies which are dubious claims). Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That would then indicative of reguar editing to remove BLP content what is unsourcable. I agree that the individual fails WP:ENT, however your !vote does not address whether or not the subject meets WP:ATH by being his being an unbeaten light-middleweight, which IS sourced in the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: he does not seem to meet Wikipedia:ATH#Boxing either. He's undefeated, but apparently that's not enough. ... discospinster _talk 14:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to discussion with those knowledgable about boxing notability, but apparently it is enough. It would seem logical that fighting for and winning the the IBU light-middleweight World Title in April 2008, and then remaining undefeated until his retirement would seem to meet WP:Boxing. And if an undefeated championship in one's weight division is not considered the peak of professional level in one's sport, than what is? Most media coverage seems to focus on heavyweight divisions, and admittedly, I do not follow boxing nor do I know the various boxing magazines where coverage is best found, but it seems he does have some sort of coverage for his boxing, and was receiving coverage for it some 10+ years back [9][10][11][12][13][14] Again, I do agree he fails WP:NACTOR, but so would George Foreman and Sonny Liston. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This book snippet about the life of Oliver Reed indicates that Reed was interested in O'Dea and had twice provided him with financial support for the boxer's career. Gonna have to see if my local library has the volume. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Joseph Fox 17:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. We're evidently not going to get a solid answer here - we can't relist forever. — Joseph Fox 09:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gutbucket (album)[edit]

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

non-notable comp —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it might not be a very famous album in its own right, the tracks on it were by musicians who (mostly) went on to have successful careers, and issued more famous albums. I would keep it (and other similar compilation albums). SemperBlotto (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Cf. with WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTABLE: notability isn't inherited. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What SemperBlotto wrote: keep !!! StefanWirz (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of several notably innovative and influential budget priced samplers issued in the UK in the late 1960s - here. Low-priced "sampler albums", designed to showcase new material and expand the market for new music among a budget-conscious (i.e. young) audience , are a quite different concept from retrospective compilations of old material, and the budget-priced samplers issued in late 1960s Britain were an important (if somewhat ephemeral) part of the zeitgeist of the time and place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Even if samplers at large were important (and this has not been established), you still need to show that this sampler was important. Can you provide sources to establish the notability of this album? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to accept that the specific notability of this particular album is debatable, although some sources suggest that the Liberty series (of which this was the first) was one of the first to appear (along with the CBS and Island series). But, I would contend not only that late 1960s UK budget samplers are a very notable and important genre as a whole, but that the Liberty series is an important sub-set of that. It would be better to maintain this article (and also Son of Gutbucket) rather than attempting to merge the two, simply because most searches would look for one or other title rather than, say, Liberty Records UK budget-priced sampler albums (1960s). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Simply find reliable, third-party sources that substantiate this claim. They can be added to this article or to List of Liberty Records sampler albums or to Sampler album depending on how many sources there are and how much material you can reasonably get out of them. I would reckon there will be very little. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unsourced. No assertion of notability, no verification of any kind. No prejudice against recreation if reliable sources can be found and applied to the page. Might be some sources, I'm not finding anything significant. BusterD (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Joseph Fox 17:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Brooks[edit]

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

I found only one reference for Clyde Brooks, he was mentioned in Nicholas Pileggi Wiseguy on (pg.35) but no real information he was listed with other members of Paul Vario's crew. The article is about Brooks controlling garbage rackets for Paul Vario with no references supporting any of the information. Brooks does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. Vic49 (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Vic49 (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Vic49 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems more to be an issue of references needed to be in place..than so about deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason for deleting the article is that there are no references support any of the information in the article, and Brooks does not pass WP:BIO (Crime). --Vic49 (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per above. Apparently yet another case of WP:NOR. - DonCalo (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. 23:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrality (talk • contribs)

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 Kismat Konnection. I'll do a rough one which can be whittled down as appropriate. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhuda Tumhi Ho[edit]

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

The article is about a song from a 2008 Bollywood movie Kismat Konnection. The movie soundtrack does not have a separate page on Wikipedia. The creator claims that the song is a "superhit". I guess this claim is more personal than real (for one thing, Indian music scene does not have a music chart which collects statistics). Further, very little information is there in the article which is not there in the article about the movie. And I really don't think there is enough sources to expand this article into a good one. — Finemann (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the film article. As the nom points out Indian film music scene doesnt have a chart.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There seems to be little coverage on the song itself aside from that one link, so it may as well be mentioned on the movie's page where it'll serve better.SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dušan Majstorović[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable, has only played on youth level. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG requiring multiple sources of non-WP:ROUTINE coverage. Coverage consists only of trivial mentions of his name or pages with only statistics. A tournament for under-16 year olds is not inherently notable per WP:NSPORTS. —Bagumba (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 16-year old playing for a village basketball club. Where's the claim of fame? No such user (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have read the article to the end. So he played for Serbia at the U-16 European championships? I suppose that is still not enough, but I'll delay my !vote until I learn more about our criteria. No such user (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Playing at the under-16 championships in any sport does not confer notability. Jenks24 (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not yet meet notability threshold. Neutrality^talk 23:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halcyon Way[edit]

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

notability not established. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the moment no evidence that it passes WP:Notability (music). Also seems to be a copyright violation.--SabreBD (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a person, animal, organization or web content but which fails to assert the importance of its subject, because... (your reason here) --Jared may (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This Band Halcyon Way is a Perfectly Good Band, and yet there is no Wikipedia Page for this, so I Decided to Create this Page. This Bands Deserves a Wikipedia Page.

This Band could become the Next Avenged Sevenfold Knowing their Musical Skills. They're Definetly a Creative, Unique and Good Band. They Should have a Wikipedia Page because of this. They attract Millions of Heavy Metal Fans, and are better than a Great Number of Musicians Nowadays.

There is a Perfect Reason for this Band to have a Wikipedia Page, because they are Highly Notable for their Skills. Regardless of how Big the Page must be they Should still have a Wikipedia Page.

For my Proof of that this Band Attracts Millions of Heavy Metal Fans Visit this Link and see how many Heavy Metal Fans like them: http://www.facebook.com/halcyonway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay yok may (talk • contribs) 08:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until they became "the new Avenged Sevenfold" this is not for Wikipedia. WP:A7 Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the comment by jay yok may proves what is already fairly clear from the article, that the intent is promotional, and the result is a high promotional article that , if the band were notable , ,would need to be started from scratch. I'm not confident enough in this subject to do a speedy by G11, but perhaps a more knowledgable admin will. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers Centurion[edit]

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

Fails GNG there are not third-party reliable sources anywhere in the article, a search of google news revealed nothing, and the only publication mentioning them in the sourcing is the main student newspaper at Rutgers. Fails WP:WEB too.

No idea how this non-notable thing has survived this long, but WP:DEADLINE will do... Cerejota (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Salon.com ran an article in 2005 here that has four paragraphs about The Centurion. The publication has been discussed in New York Times articles about founder James O'Keefe at least three times, here, here, and here. The Centurion has also been discussed in a profile of O'Keefe in the Star-Ledger here, and the Home News Tribune here. This publication has been discussed more extensively in reliable, independent sources than the vast majority of campus publications. The article should be moved to a new name, The Centurion since that is the actual name of the magazine, not "Rutgers Centurion". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worth noting for context is that the article about The Daily Targum, the official student newspaper at Rutgers, is entirely unreferenced, including only external links to Targum websites on the main campus and the Newark campus, and a dead external link to a blog. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, as you perhaps unwittingly mention, there is no sufficient independent coverage of this separate from James O'Keefe - regardless of your !v, your argument is one for merge and redirect into James O'Keefe, not a keep argument. Notability is not inherited. I am persuaded by merge and redirect, but there is no reason this should be kept as an article, as there is no significant coverage of this journal that is independent of James O'Keeffe. You feel me?--Cerejota (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes, I feel you and where you're coming from, but I have my own feelings (thoughts) too. Please note that the most significant, in depth coverage of The Centurion, the four paragraph description in Slate.com, mentions O'Keefe only in its first paragraph. It discusses several other staffers by name as well, as the coverage goes on for another three paragraphs. It is not at all unusual that some controversial and notable publications are almost always discussed in reliable sources in connection with their founding editors or publishers. Examples that come immediately to mind include The Liberator and William Lloyd Garrison, Der Stürmer and Julius Streicher, and The Realist and Paul Krassner. My informed guess is that it would be very difficult to find discussion in reliable sources of any of these three notable publications without mention of the three notable men closely associated with them. So it is with The Centurion. The same thing could be said of coverage in independent reliable sources of the San Francisco Examiner and William Randolph Hearst in the middle decades of that ill-fated newspaper's history. In my opinion, (supported by what reliable sources say) The Centurion is as notable as, or far more obviously notable by Wikipedia standards than any college campus publication you can possibly mention, both because of and despite its early association with James O'Keefe. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the examples you mention (which I recognize are not OTHERSTUFF arguments, but reasoned comparisons - a rarity around here, for which I commend you) the issue of non-independence is made moot by the issue of multiple coverage - there is extensive scholarly coverage of all of them that allows independent coverage. The Salon article, no doubt, is of the type that helps establish notability - and without considering the RS status of Salon.com itself - I would need to see one or two more articles of the same type in RS to make me change my mind that this warrants encyclopedic coverage independent of O'Keefe - to which I am open. The New York Times sources can be used as meat if the article is kept, but they do nothing beyond establishing existence, something I do not dispute. Policy ways, my argument is that it doesn't meet GNG because the coverage is not significant - there is only one source doing an in depth examination.--Cerejota (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is a good and illuminating debate. What do you think that community consensus would be, if you and I jointly nominated hundreds of article about college publications for deletion because they hadn't been discussed in depth in reliable, independent sources to a greater extent, say, than the coverage of The Centurion in Salon.com, which is a professional publication with professional editorial control, and also in the New York Times? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are going into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, why ruin a good thing? I cannot speak, and neither can you, about the merits or demerits of those articles. I can say that if you proceed as suggested they would all get a procedural keep and your account blocked or even banned for WP:POINT. That said, I do not consider one source as enough for notability of a periodical, in particular as all other coverage is not independent of biographical figure. In other words, what I think we have here is a notable figure, O'Keefe, for which one of the points of biographical interest in founding a periodical. There is an alternative for deletion, which is redirect and merge the salon.com source into O'keefe's article, and I think its a good one, but I do not feel there is enough notability proven to support a single article. Perhaps that is the case with other periodicals, but this is the one I came across. (BTW, I recently redirect per WP:BOLD the Tampa Bay Times into the parent company's article because of the lack of notability didn't warrant an article of its own). Your argument, if I understand it, is that existence of coverage is the same as notability, and while that is one of the criteria, I think you are examining other considerations. I do believe in alternatives to deletion.--Cerejota (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posed a hypothetical, and wouldn't nominate any article for deletion without looking at the cited sources (if any) and performing a search for sources as I did in this case. I looked at one other, The Daily Targum, and I discovered that it is unreferenced though that article makes a strong claim to notability. It could be that the Targum article is an exception, and that the majority of the others are well-referenced. Perhaps. I readily accept that you believe in alternatives to deletion, but please allow me to point out with respect that you are the one who nominated this particular article for deletion, as opposed to "redirect and merge". As for campus publications, we don't have any subject specific guidelines, but I think that established practice on Wikipedia evolves, in effect, into precedent and into an implied notability guideline. And I think that our notability standards, in practice, are lenient with regards to publications in general and college publications in particular. That is a small part of the reason why I support keeping this article, although I understand and accept the validity of the counter-argument you are making here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have indeed made a compelling case in discussion for a redirect/merge, that is what made me change my mind. Or are you sruprised a good argument can change people's minds? :)--Cerejota (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources provided to demonstrate notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slate article and numerous non-substantial sources get this article just over the WP:N bar. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So just one source means notability?--Cerejota (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Giangiacomo[edit]

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

Non-notable news reporter; no third-party sources. Albacore (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be notable third-party sources that would be appropriate for Wikipedia guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and per questionable copyright issues. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skank attack[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ARTIST. Article reads like an essay and is written by a website owner who states that they wish to support, "Christchurch, New Zealand and the art and culture contained within this wonderful city" which in my opinion constitutes a WP:COI. I believe that it qualifies for WP:G11 and WP:A7. Admin Graeme Bartlett decline WP:G12 stating that, "speedy dfelete declined, as writer also claims to own web site." I can find no significant coverage from reliable sources in a Google News search or Google News Archive search (although I did find a funny article about Jersey Shore). Haven't been signed to a notable label, gone on a major tour, or charted any songs. OlYeller^Talktome 14:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't the last sentence of the nom have a 'not' in it? Peridon (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call. Made the change. OlYeller^Talktome 01:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds of copyvio - the text at thebigcity appears to be older. Also delete on the grounds of notability or rather lack of, per nom. Peridon (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We are making a start. I think all the criticism are valid. So will be improved over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craignewc (talk • contribs) 11:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Craig. There are several issues with the article and you guys do appear to be addressing several of them. The real purpose of this AfD is to determine if the subject is notable or not. Notability is determined by a large list of inclusion guidelines found here. The ones that would most likely apply to this group are WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:ARTIST. As of right now, no amount of improvement of the article's text will change that. From my research, it doesn't appear that notability can be established and baring unforeseen circumstances most likely won't ever be notable. The easiest way to change that is to produce some news articles from reliable sources that shows significant coverage of the group. Other than that, there's several ways in those links I provided that the group can prove notability but as of right now, I'm not able to find any evidence of notability. OlYeller^Talktome 14:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search does not indicate 3rd party mentions.Curb Chain (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Web view engine[edit]

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

Unreferenced article by a new user that basically promotes one product. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 14:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should have been speedy in my opinion, since it is clearly an ad. (Perhaps criterion G11 would be more appropriate, A7 was declined, saying it did not apply to "tooIs"?) I would add that Google's seach add-on to Microsoft Internet Explorer seems to do a somewhat similar thing, so this product is not notable. The web page suspisciously does not say anything about the organization who developed it. W Nowicki (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline G11. IMHO this is an advertisement masquerading as an article. It defines a term and then gives a link to a product. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operator of proper-time-derivative[edit]

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

There is some consensus at WT:PHYS#Operator of proper-time-derivative to bring this page to AfD, citing unreliable texts and fringe theory. Izno (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete haven't been able to find any reliable sources. Article was created by Fedosin (talk · contribs), citing works from a Sergei Fedosin. The first one is a deadlink with an invalid ISBN, and the second one is from vixra, the outlet of the fringe and the quacks when they can't upload preprints on the Cornell arXiv repository (with world renown authors like Jesus Christ). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR; yet another speculative theory being promoted by Fedosin; see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#Speculative physics theories being promoted in Wikipedia and Wikiversity. --Lambiam 16:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Articles need to be independently verifiable. VQuakr (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The book “Fizicheskie teorii i beskonechnaia vlozhennost’ materii” is a digital edition intended for distribution through the network in electronic form. It was registered by Russian book palace in October 2009 with ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0. The link to the book not work since the site is moving to another platform. And I do not work with Cornell arXiv repository. Fedosin (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. The only sources given are WP:SPS. — HHHIPPO 07:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:OR. -- 202.124.75.6 (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to "Category:All articles lacking sources" in Wikipedia are for a long time about 254,775 articles without references. If the problem only in my references, and if they are not good let take them away! Then the article will be without references and we will speak only about the article itself. Fedosin (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please take these articles away, but first make sure to do a reasonable effort to find (or encourage others to find) good sources for them, just like people here have tried —but failed— to find secondary sources for your work. DVdm (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fedosin: First, the existence of problematic articles is by itself not a reason to add and keep another one. Second, in this case reliable sources are not only missing from the article, but there is reasonable doubt that they even exist: several people have spent time and effort to find some, but without any success. Even the author of the original paper doesn't seem to know of any secondary sources. (You're more than welcome to correct me if this is wrong: do you know of any citations of your work in publications by others?) Third: the reason why secondary sources are important here is not only to verify the contents of the article but mainly to establish the notability of the described concept. Finally, speaking about the article itself is not the point here. It doesn't matter if its content is useful or elegant, not even if it's right or wrong. It only matters if it's notable, and notability is demonstrated by secondary sources. I'm sorry we can't help you, but you first have to convince some of your peers that your work is interesting, then Wikipedia can document that. — HHHIPPO 21:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not reliably sourced, not notable, original research. It is very unfortunate that some other articles are poorly sourced; but if you notice that one end of the swimming pool has a yellow tinge, the appropriate response is not to pull your shorts down and contribute a floater. bobrayner (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unreliable source on non-notable topic. Fedosin, let me suggest that it is almost never appropriate to write Wikipedia articles about your own papers. If your work becomes important, someone else will have mentioned it in secondary sources, and people will notice it and decide to put it on Wikipedia. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The real question here is how much longer Fedosin will be allowed to abuse wikipedia for the goal of self-promotion of his non-notable writings. This will just be another in an ever-growing string of his deleted articles after wasting the time and efforts of others, and it won't bother him at all because he places his self-promotional garbage in English on Wikimedia's cesspit of pretend academia, just as he puts his self-promotional garbage repeatedly deleted on the Russian wikipedia[15] [16][17][18] on www.wikiznanie.ru.
Fedosin is not interested in wikipedia except as a tool of self-promotion, and I'm sure he's happy with the scrapes that spam his junk all over the internet. Would anyone like to have a machine translation into Thai language of the article deleted here? I can't imagine why we all wouldn't want that. Thankfully, it's available online, due the abuse of this encyclopedia by Fedosin. It's well past time to pull the plug. Tim Shuba (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is not the place for that. If you would like to see him blocked or banned, bring a discussion up at WP:AN or WP:RFC. It may be his actions fall under the purview of Wikipedia:Fringe theories. --Izno (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Matthew_Shepard#Advocacy. There is a weak consensus that this article passes WP:NBOOK and can be fixed. However, since the article's creator has already merged almost all the text to Matthew Shepard I'm going to redirect it as an editorial decision. Whether it stays a redirect or the article is restored the semi-promotional language needs to be cleaned up. Consider this a keep close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Meaning of Matthew[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable book; should be a paragraph in the Matthew Shepard article at best. Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deleting article. I have taken the opinion of OrangeMike and already opened a separate section in Matthew Shepard article, although the book portrays the advocacy and legal struggle of the writer, the mother of the victim for enacting of gay hate crime laws largely known as the Matthew Shepard law. The book was also on the New York Times Bestsellers List and was subject of reprints, softcover issue and media coverage. But doesn't matter really. This page can serve as a redirect to that specific section werldwayd (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:NBOOK: it was on the NYT bestseller list (as well as the Globe and Mail bestseller list) and was picked up by reliable sources (among others, the SF Chronicle, CBS, NPR, Entertainment Weekly, and Newsweek). The advertising tone should be corrected through normal editing, not deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roscolese is right WP:NBOOK pass.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Roscelese.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Noel Black. — Joseph Fox 09:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The World Beyond[edit]

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

Another non-notable failed pilot Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, not really seeing any evidence of notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to director's article: Noel Black. It aired and was one of many of his television works. Not enough in sources for a seperate artcle. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The World of Darkness (film)[edit]

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

Totally non-notable failed pilot. Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The pilots never took off and I'm unable to find any real mention on google other than the wiki entry. At the very most it should be briefly mentioned on Granville Van Dusen's entry, but that's about it. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Arab Consulting Engineers[edit]

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

Orphaned article since 2008, appears to be purely for commercial advertisement & contains no encyclopedic information Silverchoice (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Google News finds only incidental mentions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any notable links for the article. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing/patrolling admin, every "Keep" !vote has been made by a confirmed or suspected sockpuppet. The various accounts of this user have all been single purpose accounts concentrating on SecuTech, SecuTech Solution, and this AfD.

SecuTech[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. A Google News search and a Google News Archive search produce no articles of substantial coverage from reliable and independent sources. I've found several articles about a company called Bluestar SecuTech which doesn't appear to be related other than they both use a common abbreviation in their name (Security + Technology = SecuTech). OlYeller^Talktome 13:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a good sign when there are references for other companies in the article, but not the subject of the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also note vague, unspecific, and non-neutral text: ...stated aim of providing security and privacy solutions to both consumers and enterprises. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are many informations about this company on magazines like MacTech, and the company's name is on the CeBIT exhibitor list 2010. This article has also removed the vague text, and unnecessary external links.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmm.leader (talk • contribs) 07:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mmm.leader has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. The various accounts of this user have all been single purpose accounts concentrating on SecuTech, SecuTech Solution, and this AfD.
- Can you please provide links for this coverage? Also, the context is not as important at this point as the notability and their participation in a trade show is irrelevant unless the particular trade show somehow infers notability and I can't think of a single one that does off the top of my head. Maybe Electronic Entertainment Expo but I don't think it does. OlYeller^Talktome 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current version is perhaps worse than the nominated version, and is an essay of original research containing general promotional musings on computing security:

Introduction Financial industry refers to those enterprises operating special financial product, including banking, insurance, trust, securities industry, leasing industry and mortgage industry etc. With the application of network technology in the financial industry, people can enjoy more convenience brought by computer network, such as online banking and online security trading. But with this convenience, user information security is facing more severe challenges. Various network attack technologies result in economic losses to customers. As the fist user information security shield, if authentication is not strong enough, it will cause severe secure problem and economic loss. Current situation of financial transaction Transaction mode 1. OCT Customers go to counter and ask tellers to do their business directly. Customers have to present their ID and bank card to tellers and provide password to complete authentication and do business. . 2. Dedicated terminal Customers use dedicated terminal provided by financial institutions (ATM and POS) to process their transactions. Customers need to present credential card (bank card), customer ID and customer password to start independent transactions.

~~This text may need to be checked for copyright issues as well. From the formatting, it seems cut and pasted.~~ - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this version seems much worse than the nominated version. I've checked a few areas for a copyvio but haven't found anything. It doesn't change my !vote so I guess it doesn't matter at this point. The current perception of notability hasn't changed. OlYeller^Talktome 14:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I found nothing but this page online. At any rate, the current contents are not described well by the page title, either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, Only few companies' newses in this industry can be found, because only expensive software are using hardware dongle to protect their software and some of developers asks the dongle manufacturers put their companies logos on the device. But please judge a company just by if you can find news on google or yahoo new search engine. And after the company started branch in China, it has gained many reward form government, which cannot be searched from google, as there is no electronic version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.153.116 (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see anything on Google, Google News and Yahoo that wasn't affiliated with the company. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now we have version 3. As far as its text, it is not bad at all. Turns out this business makes dongles for copy protection. (NOT providing security and privacy solutions to both consumers and enterprises. Dongles. Was it that bloody hard to get the word out?) I'm not sure that the references for version 3 (a press release, a trade show appearance, the Wikipedia article on dongle copy protection) are significant or independent enough to pass WP:GNG, but this version at least is informative and reasonably neutral, and that's what I care about most. If a few more independent references could be added, I would happily switch to keep. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, companies in this industry usually are not so popular. Like Codemeter a very famous company in this industry, you cannot find news either. Because only some expensive software will use hardware dongle to protect their software. and the Rainbow technologies, which already has page on wiki. if you search it on [google news], you cannot find and relative news either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.153.116 (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Popularity" isn't the same as notable which is how WP determines if a subject is to be included or not. As for there being other relative pages, that there's WP:OTHERSTUFF out there doesn't really matter when it comes to notability (sorry if that sounds harsh). OlYeller^Talktome 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if it's not popular, then there are not so many media focus on it. you cannot find any news on google new is not so wired. even notalbe company alladin in this industry, you cannot find many news via google news. but please don't say aladdin is not notable. it used to be one of the largest in this industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeburst007 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This is Snakeburst007's only edit.
- I think you're confusing your notable with Wikipedia's notable. There's ways for an organization that's a major player in the industry to be notable per WP:ORG but that hasn't even been claimed let alone shown in either article. Regardless, this is a discussion about SecuTech's notability and nothing else. OlYeller^Talktome 13:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*keep, Now, it seems that this article has been add several independent references, which from Wiki, and RSA, should meet the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeburst007 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Snakeburst007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not a single reference has been added? What are you talking about? In case you haven't been notified, you're being investigated as a sockpuppet. OlYeller^Talktome 00:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have struck out Snakeburst007's vote as a sockpuppet of Planet.Vici. Please see my talk page or SPI for further information. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is heavily biased, and is pretty unencyclopedic. I don't see notability as the first three pages of a Google search for SecuTech all appear to be official websites.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn and spammy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Long on spam, short on facts. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Noah Shark[edit]

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

Sourced only to blogs. Gets no hits on G News, does not appear very notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any notable links. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The AFD tag was removed from the article on Aug 22. I have just restored it. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing in the article are either primary sites or non-reliable with the possible exception of covermesongs.com which is still doubtful as a reliable source and in any case would only be one source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Warhol[edit]

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

All sources used are self published blogs, a news search is difficult due to Lady Gaga have used the same name. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article makes indications to the future notability of Miss Warhol. examples: "Warhol's debut would not be seen until September 2011 " and "In October 2011 Candy Warhol will be a finalist in Alternative Miss London." Prognosis of noatability is not part of the WP:GNG. Flyingtent (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A news search for 'Candy Warhol Ireland' or 'Candy Warhol Drag Queen' shows various results which prove the article correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evinart (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth University Polling Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable organization of only local interest. Claims about coverage are made but not substantiated. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (1) Please define "local interest". The Polling Institute is active in six Mid-Atlantic states (entry has been updated). (2) Please note that there is precedent for this - other nearly identical institutes (e.g. Franklin & Marshall College Poll, Siena Research Institute, Marist Poll) have wiki pages. (3) In terms of notable -- A Google Web search conducted on July 24, 2011 using the limited phrase +"Monmouth University Polling Institute" turned up more than 46,000 entries! Limiting this to just Google News over the past 6 years finds more than 800 entries, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Business Week, Bloomberg News, Politico, Reuters, Philadelphia Inquirer, and more. (4) Regardless of the above, this qualifies as an encyclopedia entry in compliance with Wiki policy Mupipdm (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but how many Google hits you get doesn't mean anything. Maybe Marist Poll doesn't deserve an article either--but that's beside the point, given WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. So no, it is not (yet) an entry in compliance with our policies, at least not until reliable sources say so. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it were only one or two similar entries then WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may apply. But multiple entries (and I only gave 3 examples -- there are many more) suggests that Wiki community considers the notability standard to be met. Furthermore, this is not the only justification for this article, but just one piece of the evidence for Keep status. Must be taken together with others (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might not be the size of, say the U of M's Survey Research Center, but it's still sizable, has been cited by major national news sources as their primary source, does federal grant supported research, has won notable "awards" (being deemed most accurate, ect.) and has notable faculty. Each of these alone wouldn't necessarily qualify it for an article but taken as a set it is amply notable. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give any examples? Drmies (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see WP:ORG. "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." And "Nationally famous local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, this mention in The New York Times doesn't qualify as significant coverage, which is what is required in WP:N. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is just one example: Please note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: "4. Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." Please see following - http://www.google.com/#q=%2B%22monmouth+university+polling+institute%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GWktTpSGF8220AH6nszkDg&ved=0CBgQpwUoCw&source=lnt&tbs=sbd:1%2Ccdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F25%2F2005%2Ccd_max%3A7%2F25%2F2011&tbm=nws&fp=1&biw=1366&bih=575&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those hits are evidence more of Patrick Murray's notability than the institute he works for, in my opinion. BTW, Mupipdm, your username seems to have fallen out of your signature. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The poll's director appears to be quoted extensively in a number of published articles. One also gathers that he or someone close to him is the primary author of this article, hence the COI tag. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP THE PAGE: This poll is quite well known and, while it most often tracks issues of significance to the NY, NJ, PA area it also tracks issues of national significance, most notably during Presidential election cycles (which last 1-2 years these days). This poll is also mentioned in the RealClearPolitics, Pollster.com, 538.com averages and should thus be considered a poll worthy of mention in the online encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.159.146 (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This polling institute is a major source of information for the state of New Jersey (the 11th largest state in the Union by population), so while that is in some sense local, it is still produces data that is important to approx. 8.5 million people. It also, as mentioned before, provides national polling that is followed during presidential cycles by national sources (RealClearPolitics:example http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nj/new_jersey_mccain_vs_obama-250.html , and Pollster.com). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.206.130 (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The refs appear to be trivial and simply say what polls they have carried out etc. This should be relisted as the other contributors are a blocked account for spamming this page, and IP editors mostly. Szzuk (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: the non-SPA opinions so far are by Drmies and Szzuk (delete) and HominidMachinae (keep). Sandstein 06:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rarely support article on local institutions, or institutes within a university, , but I looked at the article first It seems to have more than local interest, and its polls are covered by reliable sources. That's the referencing likely to be found and all that is needed--an institute is notable for the work it does. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. No discussion after last good faith relisting, let's mature the discussion a bit more before closing. BusterD (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Larsson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, which calls for multiple notable performances. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the main roles in a big swedish film. shes an actress. the article doesnt claim anything else.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. The article doesn't claim anything else. The request delete is not based on the article being inaccurate, it's based on her not being sufficiently notable. Please review the notability guidelines for actors at WP:NACTOR. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - all the actors in this film has recieved alot of attention for the film as it was highly appreciated as film-work. I stay by my keep for good reasons. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So she's receiving the attention that all the actors in the film received. The film getting a lot of attention is good reason for covering the film, but being part of that group does not make her contributions "unique" or "innovative", and that her coverage is all for the one film leads this to being WP:BLP1E. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Keep - Her role has been described in multiple sources as being a notable one. She isn't some non notable extra.Also, A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources, and she has been.JusticeSonic (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I de-PRODed the article since the PROD reason was no longer valid. On the one hand it's clear that she has just done one "real" movie role, on the other hand, all Swedish "old media" references to this production I found specifically mention her (usually with a photo), although there are several well-established actors in it. This is not too common for those sources, in my experience. So she doesn't yet fulfil bullet point 1, but there is perhaps a bit of "add-on" from bullet point 3 and perhaps 2. In the end, it seems like a borderline case to me. Tomas e (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason shown for re-listing the AFD debate is pretty weak. How could the consensus be any clearer? There has only been one person arguing in favour of deletion, and that's the nominator.JusticeSonic (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relisting is the result of an administrator finding that a non-administrator had had insufficient cause to stop the discussion. "Consensus" is not a matter of a narrow majority, and in this case there were only two people holding for Keep, one of whom being the WP:SPA who created the article under discussion, and some of the defenses of the article were problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stands by my Keep. She has had a role in a major swedish film. shes an actress.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live at La Cigale[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any coverage for this release, at least not in English sources; does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC unless there's something significant and reliable here, for example. Gongshow ^Talk 20:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iblees Kii Majlish Shura[edit]

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

Non-notable and lacking reliable sources Suraj T 11:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Benefit of the doubt. It's 75 years old, has 6 references. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability It is notable and famous poem of Muhammad Iqbal. It is explained by Dr. Israr Ahmad. I have given the reference. It is also displayed on the official website of Pakistan Armed Forces. The references are as follows. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

References

^ "English Version". Pakistan Army. Retrieved 6 August 2011.
^ The International Journal of the Asian Philosophical Association, The International Journal of the Asian Philosophical Association; Masood A. Raj (2008). "Poem at Asian Philosophical Association, 2008, 1,". The International Journal of the Asian Philosophical Association (Muhammad Iqbal: Islam, the West, and the Quest for a Modern Muslim Identity). Retrieved 6 August 2011.
^ "At the International Journal of The Asian Philosophical Association" (PDF). The International Journal of the Asian Philosophical Associatio. Retrieved 6 August 2011.

What more reliable sources do you need?--Board Topper (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the three 'references' above, only the 3rd appears to be valid and relevant. The first links to the Pakistan Defence Forces site - if the English text of the poem appears there I can't see it, while the second is a link to the WP article Iblees Kii Majlish Shura in edit mode. Board Topper please clarify. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The six original references were in fact two completely bogus ones (one linking to the Pakistani army website and one to a link which edits the page), a link to a youtube video of a person reading the poem in English, a link to the poem in urdu text, a link to a youtube video of a person explaining the poem, and a single academic article discussing the poem. Notability is very far from being demonstrated. --Muhandes (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The academic paper from Kent State appears substantial. In any case the author is of such stature that any of his works is quite likely notable by default. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the three 'references' above, only the 3rd appears to be valid and relevant. The first links to the Pakistan Defence Forces site - if the English text of the poem appears there I can't see it, while the second is a link to the WP article Iblees Kii Majlish Shura in edit mode. Board Topper please clarify. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First you have removed my reference and now you are saying that where is the reference? I can't see it.--Board Topper (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC) The reference is as follows: ^[1] Is the website of Pakistan Armed Forces in front of all of your eyes. You can read the poem at [[19]][reply]

References

^ "English Version". Pakistan Army. Retrieved 6 August 2011.

Do you ever try to actually click on those links you supply? Even the last one does not work. The actual link is this It is a forum post with an unsourced and uncredited translation of the poem. How and what is this a source for? It also shows that the text in the "Explanation" section of the article is a gross copyright violation - it was copy pasted from this forum post.--Muhandes (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note that the creator of the article and his sockpuppeteer were blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeteering, so don't expect any answers from them. --Muhandes (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long comment coming up.

This poem is approaching one hundred years old, is non-English, and was written by the greatest Urdu poet of the age. Given the latter, I think that WP:NBOOK #5 must prejudice us in its favor; given the former two, I think there must be sources that we just can't access because they're not in English or they're not online. I've found some discussion in GBooks (including but not limited to here, here with "Council", here, and and here for instance, though some are snippets so I can't tell into how much detail they go.) It would also be helpful if someone was able to search on the Urdu title. The article as it stands is poorly sourced indeed, but the poem does seem to be at least minimally notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Written by a notable author and is almost one hundred years old. I cannot get myself to say delete. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have 5 keeps (North8000, Board Topper, gråb whåt you cån, Roscelese, and Joe Chill) and 2 deletes (Suraj and Muhandes). Leaving Board Topper aside, the points raised by the four other editors wishing to keep the article have not been addressed by either of the editors advocating deletion. In the face of this consensus, it is unclear why this AfD is now being relisted yet again. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By searching under an alternative transliteration of the poem title, I have found 13 results in Google Books. Unfortunately I have no time to go thru them now. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (important) Just spotted this rather fundamental fact: the article we are discussing, Iblees Kii Majlish Shura, is a mis-transliteration of the Urdu, and was moved some time ago to Iblees Ki Majlis-e-Shura, so the ((Find sources)) template above has been misdirecting us. No wonder the findings were so meager. The following valid transliterations should yield more:

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

--gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am also bemused by this repeated relisting. Notability has been demonstrated, and it was clear before the last relisting that will be no consensus to delete. Let's concentrate our efforts at AfD on truly marginal cases, rather than articles on topics with obvious cultural significance. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
shrink and merge to author article - The author article in English and Urdu author article (Urdu wikipedia محمد اقبال ) don't even mention the poem, as far as I can see, so if it's notable then it should be in the author article. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changning (prince)[edit]

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

Notability is NOT INHERITED Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changning (prince) will never become a major article, but it doesn't deserve deletion. I agree that if Changning's only distinction was his link to the imperial family of the Qing dynasty, he wouldn't deserve his own wiki (per WP:ITSA, which you cite). But Changning was a major commander in an important event of the early Qing dynasty, namely the Qing campaigns against their Dzungar-Mongol enemy Galdan. Changning also has his own biography in a major biographical dictionary (Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period) and in the Draft History of Qing, two reference works that are considered reliable sources when writing about late-imperial Chinese history. Let me add a few more details about Changning's life and the campaigns he took part in. Thanks for testing the validity of this new page, by the way! Stubs like this one should be tested more often to see what they can really yield. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added the extra information to the page. It should make the article look less stubby and more clearly not a candidate for deletion. Madalibi (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the evidence produced by Madalibi, clearly notable under military notability guidelines, as a senior political figure, and GNG. --AJHingston (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Madalibi - seems to be a notable historical figure. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convertday[edit]

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

Unable to locate reliable third-party sources, thus fails WP:V. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 06:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem i will put a link in the article of a third-party source. Nlwriter (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDY (no independent sources; I am treating coverage by other Islamic communities as not being truly independent of the subject) and WP:GNG (no establishment of general notability). Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for the time being but I don't buy your argument about coverage by other islamic "communities" not being independent. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N as containing no references to substantial coverages by independent reliable sources. Sandstein 05:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeunGoGae Station[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability requirements. No reliable and independent sources to be found. Bejinhan talks 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Keungogae Station and redirect to Daegu Subway Line 1 unless suitable sources can be found to support a separate article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Metro station in city of over 2 and a half million. Per long-standing convention, such stations are considered inherently notable. It's absolutely impossible for such a major project to be planned, built and completed without extensive government proposals, surveys and reports. Also, nominating an article for AfD within one hour of its creation only serves to discourage new editors. This is becoming a very serious issue and this is an example of what is contributing to it. --Oakshade (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The city is notable, yes, but not necessarily the station. This AfD certainly hasn't stopped the article creator from editing and creating more station articles. Bejinhan talks 02:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That essay is nice, but in fact Wikipedia editors have long considered many kinds of topics like this as inherently notable such as population centers, heads of states, etc..--Oakshade (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, Please provide a link to the consensus or to the the guideline that mentions this precedent for stations. Please note also that a perceived loss of contributors is not a relevant rationale to use at AfD. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Rail_transport. The issue of loss of contributors and more importantly discouragement of new ones due to what Jimmy Wales in-effect description of WP:CREEP is very front-and-center and should be identified when it's occurring. In this case, the new user should've been assisted, not have their work immediately thrown up for deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. googling finds nothing in the way of real coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find much by Googling considering this is a foreign language item and is unlikely to have any web sources writing about it in English. One cannot simply apply a Google test for subjects such as these. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Rail_transport. It is a metro station on a major line. It should, and no doubt, will be expanded. Note that there is a fair bit more information in the Korean and Japanese wikis. Francis Bond (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is part of a series. See Category:Daegu subway line stations. Biscuittin (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stations are generally considered to be notable. The nominator is basing his opinion on a mere essay with no "authority" on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum (Disturbed song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of article previously deleted via AFD. Single from album of same name. Single never charted, and as far as I can find was never used in any fashion that would make it notable. Article has no references that establish notability. | Uncle Milty | talk | 05:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to do with notability, failed to chart. A\/\₉3r-(0la 00:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable. JDDJS (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Valfontis (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Fasenfest[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:AUTHOR. Yoninah (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The author and her book (A Householder's Guide to the Universe) attracted the attention of independent and reliable media, see:
[20] Willamette Week
[21] Wordstock literary festival
[22] [23] The Register-Guard
[24] City Farmer News
[25] Oregon Home Magazine

In my opinion it is enough to compile a decent informative article. I admit that the coverage is rather local, Oregon-based. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for these references. I did more searching and came up with articles about her in The Oregonian and The New York Times. I would also like to change my vote to Weak keep based on Point #2 in WP:AUTHOR, as she has coined this term "householding" for home food preservation and views it as a political and economic statement. I also included a number of book reviews. Yoninah (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nominator is now !voting keep, do wish to withdraw the nomination? Valfontis (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yoninah (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscellaneous General Hospital couples[edit]

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

This appears to be an attempt to mimic List of miscellaneous General Hospital characters. That article was created in an attempt to condense a number of existing articles on soap opera characters that weren't notable enough for their own individual articles. This article appears to be created mostly as another repository for cruft, but without the existing need to gather articles that had already been written. This isn't a fan site. Without sources to back this article up, we don't need it. AniMate 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The whole concept of this article conflicts with Wikipedia not being a fansite or repository for indiscriminate amounts of fancruft. It is very poorly sourced and written like an editorial, so even if there were somewhere to cover this stuff none of the current content is usable. Reyk _YO! 20:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is a large collection of fancruft. Some are not even that notable looking around the net for sources. No attempt has been made to add reliable sources. A big problem for articles from this particular soap opera, is that those who edit them think fansites count as reliable sources. This article it's self is written just like one of those fansites.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely fan trivia. Neutrality^talk 23:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bio+Green Crystals[edit]

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

Promo piece for non-notable product (contested PROD) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have done a number of searches and have not been able to locate a single reliable seeming secondary source mentioning this product, much less providing substantive coverage. The sources in the article are all press release material.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Total spam about a non-notable product. Even the company that creates it does not warrant an article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per all reasons above. --Aspro (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-write in progress This was my first full article for Wikipedia, and I know I've got alot of work to do on it. I am currently in the process of writing an article for the company that produces the products - I just thought that writing about the product first would be easier. Now I know I should have done the company article first. I have received some constructive criticism about the language of the article and the "peacock" words which I am working on today.Jmasiulewicz (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say for the company, do you mean that you're acting on their behalf? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I made the originating editor aware here back in July of our COI policy because of the number of non encyclopaedic and unsuitable articles created due to jobbing sites like this: [26]. I don't know if he read it.--Aspro (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    - Oh dear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More from author Once the article for the company is finished and posted, perhaps it would be best just to move the contents of this page to the company article page as a sub-heading.Jmasiulewicz (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably actually be best if you concentrated your professional writing on producing advertising copy for sites that welcome it, rather than trying to place it in an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Purpose Driven Life. Any content can be retrieved and merged from the history (if appropriate). (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Smith (author)[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR, book not notable, case had coverage in the news for five minutes. WP:NOTNEWS Cerejota (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Purpose Driven Life. I think that some of the info (such as her writing a book about the ordeal) is worth keeping, but only on the PDL page. Other than that she hasn't really done anything exceedingly notable that can't be condensed into an additional 3-5 sentences on the PDL page. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- I added in a few sentences to Purpose Driven Life so now there's really no reason for the author page to really exist since all of the info that Smith is really known for is already available in the PDL page. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect as a result of Tokyogirl179's work at merging the material in to Purpose Driven Life. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !v to redirect as per above.--Cerejota (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hollywood Undead. — Joseph Fox 10:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Shady" Jeff Philips[edit]

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

This was originally a redirect to Hollywood Undead. User:GeisterXfahrer started an article, and I reverted to the redirect. The he recreated and extensively edited the article.

There is no sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The subject is a former member of the band.

I am not opposed to redirect, but there have been edits by other editors since I originally reverted to the redirect, so I do not feel comfortable doing that again, and a there is nothing to merger. So delete or delete and redirect to Hollywood Undead. Cerejota (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Hollywood Undead. Not notable independent of the band. Per WP:BAND: "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, " - SummerPhD (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band."

the subject has demonstrated individual notability with his business that has been featured on CNN, discovery channel , new york times etc.etc

here are sources for this other then just being in a band

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/fashion/sundaystyles/28MYSPACE.html?_r=2&ei=5070&en=793a09ad476b126b&ex=1126584000&th=&emc=th&adxnnlx=1126490924-QPQjQmBsj2rCX%20pjFmKj8Q&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/18/local/me-biofuel18

http://gawker.com/5447004/the-genesis-of-tila-the-alcohol+intolerant-straight+edger-who-would-be-myspaces-queen

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/fashion/sundaystyles/28MYSPACE.html?_r=2&ei=5070&en=793a09ad476b126b&ex=1126584000&th=&emc=th&adxnnlx=1126490924-QPQjQmBsj2rCX%20pjFmKj8Q&pagewante

d=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.A. bIO CARS (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 August 2011 — L.A. bIO CARS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Comment - Youtube is of no help in establishing notability. The NYTimes article quotes Philips briefly (one sentence) in terms of using social media to promote the band (therefore not independent of the band). The LATimes article quotes Philips briefly (one sentence) about biofuels conversions (L.A. bIO CARS seems to have a COI here) -- a trivial mention. The gawker link has him discussing dating the "famewhoring" (their word, not mine) Tila Tequila -- not a huge step toward notability, IMO. The final NYTimes is a duplicate of the first. We can source that he exists, previously was in the band and once "casually dated" Tequila. Still nowhere near notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how about this ( discovery channel website ) http://planetgreen.discovery.com/feature/instrumental/diy-biofuels-jeff-phillips.html

or this 5 minute interview from CNN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Z8X_r_l_M

global shift (huffington post) http://www.globalshift.org/2010/03/22/jeff-phillips-from-music-to-bio-fuels-pioneer/

http://www.luxecoliving.com/lifestyle/biofuel-to-massesalternative-fuel/

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/07/prweb4225654.htm

Delete then redirect to the band name as per SummerPhD. Subject is not independently notable. (Further to Summer's comments, something called "prweb" is obviously promotional and does not help establish notability.) LadyofShalott 09:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pepper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Created as Peter Pepper (musician), redirected by CSD decline admin to allow correct AfD.

Only local coverage in a single free newspaper. This is the fourth deletion and third AfD of pretty much the same identical material. CSD declined because of significant difference due to sourcing, but sourcing doesn't support notability.

All other sources are self-published or promotional (ie facebook).

Usual non-notable artist cruft, made even more aggravating by being the fourth version. I suggest we salt this article, and the redirect, as this article has a high likelihood of being recreated. If the point of our policies not allowing these articles is not gotten after 2 years of trying, I think a little more eloquence is needed. If in the future the subject is notable enough, the article creator can go for AfC or the drawing board to create and then an admin cna unsalt. Cerejota (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources for this article are a mess. Please note that most are used repeatedly under various titles. More to the point, they consist of blogs, the artist's own site and a single page on a free paper's website (not actually in the paper, it's also a blog). Basically, we do not have sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources, failing GNG. (The article also features plenty of in-line links for associated acts' MySpace and Facebook pages.) Then we have the discography with Retard-O-Bot, a non-notable band on a non-notable label (no help there). Next, there's the upcoming solo release, on the same non-notable label. Finally, we have the "Current Personal Life and Adventures" section... um, yeah. A quick review of the editor who created this article shows this article has be created, deleted and re-created several times under various versions of the name: Peter Pepper, Peter Pepper (musician), Peter Pepper (Retard-O-Bot), Peter Pepper (again) and Peter Pepper (musician) (again). After three prior AFDs and several speedies, the argument that this "up and coming musician ... deserves a page" doesn't cut it. We need sources that are both independent of the subject and reliable, providing substantial coverage of Pepper. We simply do not have that. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points, and I do agree the the sources at the bottom are terribly messed up, I am new to Wikipedia so I do not know how to keep it from doing that. Please give me a few more days to see if I can find some independent sources and News worthy events. I am trying to occupy my mind by making these pages (which for me take hours) because I am trying to come to the terms with the fact that i have about 10 years to live. But that is obviously irrelevant to this. Just please give me a few more days to do some more research while I am trying to cope with this news. Please do not delete it right away. GeisterXfahrer (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a week or so.--Cerejota (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless better sourcing can be presented here. My search efforts have not turned up coverage sufficient for subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 23:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources and lack of any indication things have significantly changed since the last AFD last year. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I am always reluctant to close an AfD as "no consensus", especially after a relisting, much discussion, and this being the third AfD; however, this article is really on the boundary of what our guidelines find acceptable. There are slightly more people calling for keep, and some of the earlier delete !votes have not taken into account the extra sources that have been added to the article during the AfD. However, the arguments put forward by Cunard are quite compelling. Few of the sources are independent and reliable, and then there is a blurry interpretation of exactly how significant the coverage has been. There is an awareness that the website exists. And some commentators find the site useful. And that could be interpreted as significant. FuFoFuEd made some useful comments that what was said in the sources was significant, even if the coverage wasn't. But FuFoFuEd !votes for a merge rather than a keep. There are comments that the website is cited by a number of Wikipedia articles, and that signifies something. Though when looking at the article itself, there is little notable information there. The article itself doesn't make a good case for the topic being notable. The main assertion is that it has a large readership. However "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity". So this keeps bouncing back and forth, so the only appropriate response must be No consensus SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Universe Today[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article about a website provides no indication of coverage in independent sources that would provide notability. I was able to find news listings from the site and descriptions of it in non-independent material (e.g., in the book the site distributed), but only a few passing mentions otherwise. Survived AFD in 2006 with arguments based on its Alexa rankings and the fact that it was mentioned in blogs -- stuff that would not be considered good arguments under current AFD standards. RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - interesting, but non-notable site. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Similar to, but slightly smaller than and less commercial-aerospace focussed than Space.com. Perfectly notable - for example it was mentioned just today on the Planetary Society's website in an article on how news stories on space topics are identified and brought to the public. Iridia (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to Fraser Cain. I think there are enough references to it in Google Books and Google Scholar to qualify (search for universetoday.com), even if I can't find one truly in-depth (too may links to go through, see discussion further below for some independent coverage). Failing that, I see no reason why this can't be a section in the biography of its owner/writer, Fraser Cain. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that Badastronomy.com is a similar redirect. That seems the best solution here. The site has some independent coverage, but it's of limited extent, even though real world notability is not in doubt. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This site is used very often as a source in Wikipedia (61 articles link to this page, a lot more mention it). It definitely meet WP:RS. So for me, that's something notable. Others may disagree, but I feel that Wikipedia readers should definitely know what they are dealing with. Also per Iridia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those talking about it being "mentioned" or "references to it", I would point out that our notability guidelines call for significant coverage, not just mentions. I have yet to see an independent source that covered this site in any significant way. As for its use as a source, there are numerous sources that are not considered notable. --RL0919 (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We have dozens of articles about academic journals that don't have significant coverage in the sense of one or two big, third-party articles about them, but have significant coverage in the sense of many references citing them. The latter sense of significant coverage is in fact the accepted one in academia, and Universe Today deals in mostly academic matters. The idiot's guide version of that in WP:GNG works for some but not all topics, which is why that is a guideline. We also have exceptions like WP:PROF and others. This is clearly a site notable in the real world. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, seriously? There are numerous existing "exceptions" (that is, failures to follow) to WP:N and WP:V all over Wikipedia. That doesn't make them justification for more of the same. --RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, WP:OTHERRULESEXIST. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. No indication of notability; no discussion of the site in reliable sources. For journals, we expect at least appearance in standard indexes, and preferably more. If this web site had won some kind of award, as Badastronomy.com has, then it would certainly cross the line, but it hasn't. In fact this article is just an ad for the site. -- 202.124.72.139 (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- O RLY? [27] [28] It's just a failure to search. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither of those news stories seem to be entirely independent of Fraser Cain, but they are at least something. -- 202.124.72.139 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is, say, Bloomberg News's writer Felix Gillette related to Fraser Cain? FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both those articles mention UT only in passing, discussing other topics (Google and the "embargo system"). Both articles, in as far as they mention UT, simply repeat Fraser Cain's own words ("'If there are some changes you'd like me to make, just tell me what I need to do,' Cain wrote" and "'Everybody knows embargoes are broken, but nobody's willing to take the first step and abandon the system,' Fraser Cain, publisher of the Universe Today site, told ABSW"). As coverage, that seems very thin. -- 202.124.72.217 (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These could be actual indicators of notability, if they are in fact independent. (Not sure what is the basis for the IP editor's comment, so I'll reserve judgment on that pending some reply.) By the way, I assume "failure to search" in this case means "failure to click on the 7000+ news search results, in the hope that one of them would be something other than a citation, reprint, or use of the words 'universe' and 'today' next to one another without referring to this website". Because that's what the first few dozen I tried were. --RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could have read Iridia's link (Emily Lakdawalla (11 August 2011). "The Role of Press Releases in Space News Coverage". The Planetary Society Blog. The Planetary Society.).

...This is an awful lot of news. It would be tough to cover all or even most of it, though a few outlets do try to cover a lot of it (notably Universe Today and space.com). NASA shows up over and over, in part because they've got a lot of exciting activity to talk about, but also because NASA is, hands down, the best of these organizations at selling compelling stories to the media.
Go ahead and check around at some space news sites -- Universe Today, SPACE.com, MSNBC's Space section, or blogs like Bad Astronomy -- for the period from June 5 to 11 to see what topics they covered. You'll see a lot of these press-released stories covered on most of those sites. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that -- press-released stories are pre-selected for being interesting to the public, so it makes sense that multiple news outlets should choose to write about them. And these sites aren't churnalist ones; the writers do independent reporting. In fact I rely on Universe Today and Bad Astronomy to give me an independent look at big news stories. I'm just pointing out that a large portion of stories that get covered are the ones that are selected for press-release treatment, and a lot of outlets cover the same stories.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider that significant coverage, then we have different views of what that term means. The Bloomberg and ABSW stories, on the other hand, do appear to significant coverage, if the IP editor above is wrong about the claim of them being non-independent. (These should be added to this article if it is kept.) --RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of indexing, it's indexed by Google News for whatever that's worth. I don't know of a more serious "news indexing" organization analogous to the indexing for academic publishing. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The sources mentioned above seem enough to keep it for now. I think the article needs to be rewritten and greatly improved, though. If it's been in this condition for a while, no wonder someone wants to delete it!Astrocog (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I thought about it some more, and decided that WP:WEB should really apply here. I know this is a popular website and one that I like. However, I considered the likelihood that a reasonable amount of material can be gathered to make the article encyclopedic and I realized that likelihood is tiny.Astrocog (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

**Delete. I agree that this article is not notable and furthermore it looks rather spammy. Its just another amateur news site with no connection to professional research journals. The authors are untalented and unrecognised. None of them have degrees in astronomy, astrophysics or cosmology etc. The writing is extemely poor. Full of innacuracies and dreadfull grammar. This should have been deleted long ago. Exobiologist (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

- - Your account has spent most of its time on Wikipedia trying to get this one article deleted. You're also making derogatory statements against the site's personnel, which contradict what reliable sources say about it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Confirmed now as block-evading sock of User:Universe Daily, see [29]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Despite two previous AfDs and over five years of existence (this article was created on 11 January 2006), this article does not cite any reliable sources. The sole source is this Alexa link. Tantamount to a directory entry, Alexa links cannot be used to establish notability because they are not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic. A Google News Archive search and a Google Books search return passing mentions. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline requires that topics receive nontrivial coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. No one has been able to provide even one such source. The article currently fails the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability. As to Wikipedia:Notability (web), I do not believe passing it would allow this article to remain. As S Marshall (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 12#Kate Oxley:
DRV has tended to find, of late, that the GNG trumps all SNGs. I like this: it feels right to me that there should be a simple test, and that inclusionists should not get to argue that meeting a SNG prevents deletion, and also that deletionists should not get to argue that failing a SNG leads to deletion. I'd like this simple and clear view to continue, which means I endorse the finding in this case. As I've said before, I think this means we can go around demoting the SNGs to essay status.
I agree with S Marshall's position on subject-specific notability guidelines' being trumped by the general notability guideline. Therefore, I support deleting this article for failing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the most absurd vote I've seen here. The contents is clearly verifiable and even supported by inline citations. The only question is whether it's wp:notable enough. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I rewrote and cleaned up the article. If further evidence of notability is required, then surely

Cain, F.; Gay, P. L.; Foster, T.; Plait, P. (2008). C. D. Garmany; Michael G. Gibbs; Joseph Ward Moody (eds.). "It Takes an e-Village". ASP Conference Series. 369: 69. Bibcode:2008ASPC..389...69C. ISBN 978-1583816486.
Lutz D. Schmadel (2009). "(158092) Frasercain". Dictionary of Minor Planet Names: Addendum to Fifth Edition: 2006 - 2008. Springer. ISBN 978-3642019647.
Pamela L. Gay; Fraser Cain; Phil Plait; Emily Lakdawalla; Jordan Raddick (2009). "Live Casting: Bringing Astronomy to the Masses in Real Time" (PDF). CAP Journal. 6 (6): 26–29. Bibcode:2009CAPJ....6...26G.

covers it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a popular astronomy web site that has been online for more than a decade, one would expect that this site would meet the WP:GNG. As noted by Irida and FuFoFuEd, these sources do in fact appear to exist. Cleanup-type issues as highlighted in some !votes here are not good reasons for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of the sources in the article by Cunard (talk · contribs):
1. "Universetoday.com Site Info". Alexa Internet. Retrieved 2011-08-04. – Alexa is not a reliable source because there is no editorial oversight over the page. Tantamount to a directory listing, the website does not establish notability because it is not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic.
2. "Privacy Policy". Retrieved 2011-08-20. – Universe Today's privacy policy is not a third-party reliable source.
3. "Contact Us". 2006-07-06. Retrieved 2011-08-20. – Universe Today's contact us page is not a third-party reliable source.
4. Fraser Cain, Pamela L. Gay, Thomas Foster; Phil Plait; Gay; Foster; Plait (2008). "It Takes an e-Village". ASP Conference Series. 369: 69. Bibcode:2008ASPC..389...69C. ISBN 978-1583816486.((cite journal)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) – the source states:
  In the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today combined BAUT Forums, thousands of people gather on a daily basis to talk and ask questions about astronomy.
  Google Book states that there is "1 page matching 'Universe Today' in this book". A passing mention does not meet the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
1. Lutz D. Schmadel (2009). "(158092) Frasercain". Dictionary of Minor Planet Names: Addendum to Fifth Edition: 2006 - 2008. Springer. ISBN 978-3642019647. – This Dictionary of Minor Planet Names states:
  Fraser Cain (1971- ) is an engineer, book and magazine author. He is also publisher of Universe Today, which reports news on astronomy and space science to millions of people every year.
  In this dictionary of minor planet names, Fraser Cain is mentioned because a planet is named after him. The mention of Universe Today is tangential. It is insufficient to pass the requirement of "significant coverage" at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
1. Ian O'Neill (27 October 2008). "Universe Today banned from Digg.com". AstroEngine. Retrieved 2011-08-20. – at first glance, this source appears to suffice. However, the author writes:
  Whilst in the grand scheme of things, getting banned from Digg doesn’t mean squat, after all the Universe Today team (including myself) will continue to deliver the highest quality material we can muster. It’s just a shame our writing won’t be accessing the audience of the web’s largest communities in the future. However, it’s a bigger shame the admin peeps at Digg can’t see what is going wrong with their democratic website.
  This source is neither reliable nor secondary. Its lack of neutrality makes it an unreliable source so it cannot be used to establish notability.
1. Emily Lakdawalla (11 August 2011). "The Role of Press Releases in Space News Coverage". The Planetary Society. Retrieved 2011-08-20. – the source states:
  Go ahead and check around at some space news sites -- Universe Today, SPACE.com, MSNBC's Space section, or blogs like Bad Astronomy -- for the period from June 5 to 11 to see what topics they covered. You'll see a lot of these press-released stories covered on most of those sites. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that -- press-released stories are pre-selected for being interesting to the public, so it makes sense that multiple news outlets should choose to write about them. And these sites aren't churnalist ones; the writers do independent reporting. In fact I rely on Universe Today and Bad Astronomy to give me an independent look at big news stories. I'm just pointing out that a large portion of stories that get covered are the ones that are selected for press-release treatment, and a lot of outlets cover the same stories.
  That Universe Today is tangentially cited as an example does not establish notability.
1. Pamela L. Gay; Fraser Cain; Phil Plait; Emily Lakdawalla; Jordan Raddick (2009). "Live Casting: Bringing Astronomy to the Masses in Real Time" (PDF). CAP Journal. 6: 26–29. Bibcode:2009CAPJ....6...26G. – this source is being used to verify "Several peer-reviewed papers have been written about the impact of Universe Today in space-related news." in the Wikipedia article. The source states:
  Fraser Cain is a publisher of Universe Today, a space and astronomy news website.
  In addition to this being an egregious misrepresentation, the source is not secondary and has said nothing about Universe Today's impact in space-related news.
1. Pamela L. Gay; R. Bemrose-Fetter; G. Bracey; Fraser Cain (2007). "Astronomy Cast: Evaluation of a podcast audience's content needs and listening habits". CAP Journal. 1: 24. Bibcode:2007CAPJ....1...24G. – see #8. This article shares a coauthor, Fraser Cain, with the above source.
2. P. Russo (2007). "Science communication distribution services in astronomy and planetary sciences outreach" (PDF). Proceedings from the IAU/National Observatory of Athens/ESA/ESO Conference, Athens, Greece, 8-11 October 2007: 232–236. Bibcode:2008ca07.conf..232R. – the source states:
  Podcasting refers to the production and online subscription-based distribution of media files on the internet (as audio or as video podcast, also known as vodcast).
  Example:
  • Hubblecast: http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/hubblecast.html • Hidden Universe: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/features/hiddenuniverse/index.shtml
  • Planetary Radio: http://planetary.org/radio/
  • Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/category/podcasts/
  This passing mention does not establish notability.
1. Ian O'Neill (28 October 2008). "The Universe Today is unbanned from Digg.com!". AstroEngine. Retrieved 2011-08-20. – the source's author is the same as source #6.
2. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_13/b4221044336007.htm – Universe Today receives some coverage:
  "Fraser Cain realized on Mar. 2 that his 12-year-old astronomy website had lost 20 percent of its traffic in five days."
  "Like every Web business, Universe Today gets a sizable portion of its traffic via Google, which accounts for 65 percent of U.S. Web searches, according to Nielsen."
  Universe Today began appearing lower on results pages when Internet users googled astro-related topics. So Cain logged onto a Google forum to testify on behalf of his site's quality. "If there are some changes you'd like me to make, just tell me what I need to do," Cain wrote. Elsewhere in the forum, distraught business owners—financial advisers, lingerie salespeople—raged and pled for clemency. "I'm a smoldering cinder from last week's napalm strike," wrote one publisher.
  At Universe Today, Cain says he's not waiting for a response from Google. If astronomers can figure out black holes, his thinking goes, Webmasters can handle Google. "We're in the dark right now," says Cain. "But complaining about it doesn't do any good."
  I do not consider this to be "significant coverage" of Universe Today. Titled "Matt Cutts: The Greenspan of Google", the article is mainly about Matt Cutter and Google's search-engine optimization. Universe Today is used to frame a discussion of search engine optimization. It is, though, much better coverage than the previous 11 sources. Excluding the quotations from people affiliated with Universe Today, there are roughly five sentences about Universe Today in this 36-sentence article.
3. Aisling Spain (17 April 2011). "Embargo system is broken, says Universe Today, and leaves the game". Association of British Science Writers. Retrieved 2011-08-20. – the sole coverage of Universe Today is:
  The space and astronomy news site Universe Today has decided to simply ignore embargoed stories as of 31 March 2011. "Everybody knows embargoes are broken, but nobody's willing to take the first step and abandon the system," Fraser Cain, publisher of the Universe Today site, told ABSW.
  The remainder of the article discusses various other websites such as Embargo Watch and Faculty of 1000 (F1000).
I appreciate the work Headbomb (talk · contribs) has spent sourcing this article. However, because the sources lack the depth and reliability mandated by Wikipedia:Notability, this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By Cunard's accounting standard, an interview with S conducted by R has virtually zero coverage of S, because only the questions by R are independent, and those don't tell us anything about S. Cunard forgets that the whole purpose of such a journalistic piece is that R considers S interesting / notable / whatever and wants his public to hear something about S. Similarly, Cunard's argument includes the assumption that every coverage not greater than, say, 1000 words, equals zero, therefore Cunard concludes that this topic has zero coverage in reliable sources as a sum of negligible quantities. If academia worked like, 1000 citations would be worth nothing, and being indexed by a specialist service would also be worth nothing. This is not how the real world works though. I understand that thinking is too hard for most Wikipedians, therefore, we need a simple formula for notability: sum ( word_count > 500 ? 1 : 0 ). The amusing side of that is when people get confronted by obvious non-notable pieces like WP:109PAPERS stories and restaurant reviews in the local section of NYT. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A collection of passing mentions does not amount to significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a different definition for passing mention. For instance, the passage "It would be tough to cover all or even most of it, though a few outlets do try to cover a lot of it (notably Universe Today and space.com). [...] Go ahead and check around at some space news sites -- Universe Today, SPACE.com, MSNBC's Space section, or blogs like Bad Astronomy -- for the period from June 5 to 11 to see what topics they covered. [...] And these sites aren't churnalist ones; the writers do independent reporting. In fact I rely on Universe Today and Bad Astronomy to give me an independent look at big news stories." I read that as an endorsement from the writer that UT is one of the few notable/valuable sites in this area, not a passing mention among umpteen sites. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources mention Universe Today; I agree that some even speak favorably of it—in passing mention. By "passing mention", I mean that the coverage is tangential to what is being discussed. Cunard (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me put it another way: if Wikipedia had a Astronomy websites article/category, what would you include in it based on that source? FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because that source does not nontrivially cover any of the astronomy websites mentioned in it, I would be unable to include any of them in an astronomy websites category. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, not every source is present to established notability, many are there because of WP:V. In particular, WP:PRIMARY, explicitly states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Saying "Ha! You used the site itself to source basic claims made about it, like who's in charge, and who's the editor proves it's non-notable! We should have a peer-reviewed third party source to establish that Nancy Atkinson is in fact the senior editor at Universe Today" is utterly ridiculous. Likewise sources that like Bibcode:2008ASPC..389...69C are dismissed with the baCK of the hand because you can only see one sentence from a Google excerpt is just nonsense. The full article's available and covers UT, BA, (more specifically the BAUT foms) very extensively, as part of conferences held by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. If you bothered to read it, you'd see it's far from promotional material, it's a rather terse analysis of the behaviour of BAUT forum users, as what it means for online astronomy communities in general.

But you know, you're absolutely right, being the biggest astronomy news site out there means = not notable enough for Wikipedia. That makes sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that not every source is used to establish notability. However, I analyzed all of the sources to demonstrate that none of them establish notability. For Bibcode:2008ASPC..389...69C, it would be better to have access to the entire source but I have access to who the authors are:

Authors: Cain, F.; Gay, P. L.; Foster, T.; Plait, P.

Per source #8, F. Cain is "a publisher of Universe Today". This source cannot be considered a secondary reference and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think sources the presented here are reliable, and their information should be better incorporated into the article, if it stays. I'm still not convinced it needs to be kept, however. The claim that the website is the biggest astronomy news site cannot likely be verified. The sources shown so far seem to me to constitute a small section in what the page would have. I don't think the CAP article is a conflicted source, merely because Fraser Cain is an author on it. Because it's from a peer-reviewed publication (CAP is a respected journal about public outreach in astronomy), I think that is enough to show it is not a self-published advert from Cain. Does the CAP article describe the context and background of the website? If so, that's good. I just remembered that Pamela Gay and Fraser Cain have been interviewed on a popular podcast, and here's the link: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=95 I haven't listened to the interview recently, but I wonder if Universe Today is described there, and placed in a context relative to other astronomy sites. If so, the podcast can be cited. Good luck.Astrocog (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I rambled a bit there. I just need some more convincing on this to keep it, rather than have it redirect to Fraser Cain's page, or be a part of some larger article. More sources that will build the encyclopedic stuff is what I'd like to see.Astrocog (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That CAP is a respected journal does not negate the fact that the article cannot be considered a secondary source because of the involvement of Universe Today founder and publisher F. Cain. While it may be considered reliable, it cannot be used to establish notability. F. Cain is predisposed to discuss his creation in the article.

I don't think a merge of Universe Today to Fraser Cain is helpful. Cain is likely non-notable due to the lack of reliable sources about him. Fraser Cain's Wikipedia article is sourced to three articles written by himself, a directory mention, and the website of Astronomy Cast which he co-hosts. A Google News Archive search ("Fraser Cain" -"by Fraser Cain"), a Google Books search return no secondary reliable sources about him. His short article cannot be further expanded and should likely be deleted. To include more information about Universe Today in his article would be coatracking. A redirect would also be unhelpful because there is and can only be a passing mention of Universe Today in Fraser Cain's article because of the coatracking concerns. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Cain not notable??? He's the founder and publisher of Universe Today and host of Astronomy Cast! The guy has a friggin' asteroid named after him because of his contributions to Astronomy news (aka UT and AC)!Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Cunard here. His point about the CAP journals is solid, and now that I've looked at their content, they don't provide anything more than a mention of the website without discussion. I also looked at Fraser Cain's page, and I have to say I think it may be up for deletion in the future, too. There's just not enough to go on. Because somebody has an asteroid named after them is not enough. Asteroids are named by the people who find them, generally amateur astronomers, who name asteroids after friends or people they admire. The amateur who named the asteroid was likely a listener of Cain's podcast. Look, I wish this were not the case, because I like Cain and the work he does. But my personal appreciation of AstronomyCast is not enough to be lax on standards.Astrocog (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, and also I am opening a horsemeat burger stand, horsemeat goes very well with bacon and beer. :)--Cerejota (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cunard makes a compelling argument about how the news website lacks evidence of notability. I'm inclined to agree. There's nothing wrong with the primary-sourced information, but it doesn't contribute to fulfilling WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Also, let's not get into debates about Fraser Cain here. Save it for another discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable website. Doesn't meet criteria for keeping. I have little else to add as Cunard has already given substantial cause for the removal of this page. Astronomy is a rather secular topic by itself with few followers but even among news groups devoted to astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology the site gets very little mention. Runningbackwards36 (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)— Runningbackwards36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep- this page links to an independent source that, in all likelyhood, covers the subject in detail. Unfortunately it's locked up behind a paywall, however the summary indicates that UniverseToday is a major focus of it. Since UniverseToday was, in my opinion, close to meeting WP:GNG without the source I found, I think this pushes it well over the edge. Reyk _YO! 08:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link which Reyk (talk · contribs) provides has a list of articles published by the American Association of Physics Teachers. I find one article that mentions "Universe Today" in its summary. The link to the article is here. Because the article requires a log-in, I have saved it and placed it at https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/kdgcZh. I will let editors make their own judgment about whether this source establishes notability. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it does not. That's a monthly column about web resources for physics and astronomy teachers. The resource focused on, in one paragraph, is the podcast Astronomycast, and the article merely mentions that Astronomy cast is hosted by Fraser Cain, who edits Universe Today. There is no detail about Universe Today...in fact, nothing of substance is said. This article cannot be used to establish notability.Astrocog (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Astrocog; this source does not sufficiently describe the subject in-depth to fulfill the general notability guidelines. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this, plus all the others, and the endorsements from other organizations like The Planetary Society, does fulfill the GNG. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing evidence of the significant coverage needed for GNG. It has already been shown above that the many sources referred at best mention the existence of the website, but do not provide significant coverage of the website itself, which is what I interpret the GNG to be requiring.Astrocog (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Since this is my first time participating in once of these discussions, I'm not sure how long this needs to go on. What is the next step for making a decision one way or the other here? It seems to me that everything that can be said has been said.Astrocog (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as no consensus is probably the way to go. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of synthpop artists[edit]

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

Shoddy list lacking sufficient references. Information displayed in the list could be better represented using categories. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 05:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly fine list on a notable subject with clear inclusion critera. If 38 references are not sufficient, then fix it. The category arguement fails - see WP:CLN for more. Lugnuts (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more this list is doing that cats don't. Thus the category argument succeeds.Curb Chain (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Lists are not mutually exclusive with or replaceable solely by categories for many reasons (see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates). This list fulfills the primary requirements of a list. It is discriminate, notable and verifiable. I see no reason to delete because it is poorly referenced. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the reason we have lists. Lists exist to add background to the entries. This is doing nothing more than listing the entries, which cats already do.Curb Chain (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly fine as a list article; lists are not mutually exclusive with categories. However, do what we've done with the metal lists... remove everything without a source, and don't allow reinclusion until a source is found, or it just invites edit wars. 13:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why List of progressive metal artists should be kept. Category pages do exactly what List of progressive metal artists is doing. What other metal lists are there?Curb Chain (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Blackmetalbaz above. I am not a fan of list articles, but they are legitimate and we could borrow sources from the recently revamped synthpop article, which will cover the key bands and then delete those with no reliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not too many of them are sourced, and articles like this are a huge target for vandalism. Besides that, I personally see no use in a list like this. Couldn't a category do the same effect? And besides, a lot of these seem to be already present in the synthpop article itself. — Status {^talk_contribs 07:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Large target for vandalism is not a valid reason for deletion. Go ahead and nominate the George W. Bush article based on that rationale. And read the above comments about lists vs. categories. Lugnuts (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I listed five reasons why, not one. If all of them can be sourced, I will surely go ahead and change my vote to keep. But at its current state, no. I would maybe even suggest a redirect to synthpop. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is actually better referenced the the other genre lists either on the list or in the main article for the act which until now has been the "consensus" standard for this list. Edkollin (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of Off Topic: It is about time Wikipedia set specific ground rules for list inclusion. While ideally entries should be be reliably sourced within the list article itself as every article is supposed to be reliably sourced and non dependent on what goes on in other articles dependence on the main article has been the de facto standard for so long that unless most of the Wikipedians get laid off and divorced reliably sourced in the "main" article is more realistic.

I would also like Wikipedia to make the jump to user only entries. In my experience 90-95% of the non/unreliable sourced/non-notable entries are made by non users. This problem is particularly bad on music and list articles. For a more detailed argument see my user page. Edkollin (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All articles should be inline with each other.Curb Chain (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shoddy list, as nom. Categories suffice.Curb Chain (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable musicians by a notable genre is really one of the most basic and obvious kinds of lists for this subject. Unless it is contended that there are no reliable sources classifying anyone notable as a synthpop artist, there is no reason to delete this list. The deletion !votes offered above are by and large classic arguments not to use in a deletion discussion, such as it's WP:USELESS, it's WP:RUBBISH, or it's WP:SUSCEPTIBLE to vandalism. The claim that the category is "sufficient" is contrary to WP:CLN, the most basic point of which is we don't delete one method of article navigation/article indexing/organizing information just because there's another. Some people like to work more with categories, others more with lists. The list, further, includes all entries on one page unlike the category, and could otherwise be annotated or organized even though it isn't at present.
Whether the list itself should contain references, or whether it's sufficient for the source for the genre classification to only be in the article listed, is sometimes a matter of contention generally with lists, and I don't particularly care about that point. Regardless, that's a matter for normal editing and discussion to resolve. I undid Curb Chain (talk · contribs)'s blanking of all entries that are unsourced within the list, as this is contrary to editing policy. By all means remove any entry that you believe in good faith does not belong, and probably any article listed that itself does not even mention synth pop as the subject's genre, but we do not indiscriminately blank content that can be sourced just because it isn't at present, particularly not if it's actually sourced within another article, as it may be in many of the entries. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only argument for keeping has been that the subject is a reliable source. However, that is irrelevant when it comes to determing whether the subject itself should have an article or not. In this case the concerns concerning notability, and lack of independent coverage of the publication itself, appear well founded. That does not render any decision on whether the subject of the article may be used as a source in other articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cracroft's Peerage[edit]

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

1st reason: Cracroft's Peerage (hereafter CP) is a home-made publication by a layman, Mr Patrick Cracroft-Brennan.
2nd reason: The article lacks sources and references.
3rd reason: CP is not notable. (Example: Only approx. 12,500 hits on Google, whereof approx. 9,200 hits when excluding cracroftspeerage.co.uk and wikipedia.org. Comparatively, the more known Burke's Peerage and Gentry gets over two millions.)
4th reason: It is claimed, among others by me, that CP contains incorrect and/or speculative information (hereunder the editor's own juridical interpretations), especially what concerns newer information. This is also likely, as this is a case where a non-expert is dealing with advanced and difficult peerage law which experts have studied for years to understand the width of. Wikipedia should not include peerages that are not recognised as qualitative and reliable, as this may lead readers into believing that CP is authoritative. I see that CP already is being used as a source in articles here. Examples are John Temple (diplomat) (quotation: Following the death of Sir Richard Temple, 7th Baronet in 1786, John Temple claimed the Temple Baronetcy of Stowe on the basis of a declaration by George Nugent-Temple-Grenville, 1st Marquess of Buckingham, but his claim is disputed. It is not recognized, for instance, by Cracroft's Peerage,[3] which considers the baronetcy to be dormant.), Duke of Hamilton, and Charles Culling Smith.
5th reason: The article might be self-promotion/advertisement for CP.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep This reference work is regularly mentioned as a reliable source of information by The Times, the BBC, The Daily Telegraph, and the Daily Mail, and by American sources such as Business Week and MSNBC. Shortcomings in the article should be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. If reliable sources criticize the publication as does the nominator, then such criticism can be included in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete: CP is not notable (neither broadly recognised nor accepted by third-party publishers). That some large newspapers refer to it, is not strange, as many media use Wikipedia. When the article – with today's form and promotional/non-disputed text – remains standing here, readers who have noticed CP as a reference on the site, and who thereafter visit this article to check whether CP is authoritative on this field, may easily believe that the the with CP sourced information is factual, reliable, etcetera. I dislike having to say it, but the reality is sometimes hard: All factors indicate that this is one man's home-made work. Wikipedia states that self-published sources generally are unreliable. Quotation: Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, [...] are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. [...] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aaemn784 seemingly does not understand the distinction between a publication that is notable and therefore eligible for an article on Wikipedia, and a publication that is considered a reliable source that can be cited in a Wikipedia article. Of course, many publications are both. But there are many publications that are clearly notable, and we have Wikipedia articles about those publications, but are by no means considered reliable sources. Examples that come immediately to mind include Der Stürmer, Weekly World News, The Onion, Mad Magazine and The Realist. On the other hand, there are countless examples of academic or historical journals, or books published by reputable houses written by authors with solid credentials, that are perfectly acceptable as reliable sources yet have no articles about them on Wikipedia. I am arguing here that Cracroft's Peerage is notable, not that it is reliable. If Aaemn784 is aware of reliable sources stating that Cracroft's Peerage is not reliable, then that information and source should be added to the article. Deletion of an article about a notable topic is not the solution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment: Quotation: ‘If Aaemn784 is aware of reliable sources stating that Cracroft's Peerage is not reliable, then that information and source should be added to the article.’ A basic principle in academia, is that notability, and not the lack of notability, has to be documented. Furthermore, (in this case) the editor(s) concerned has to provide it. I clicked ‘Find sources: "Cracroft's Peerage"’ above, and got some 4,000 hits on Google. CP is obviously not notable, but a private project which also is without experts' necessary quality control. See for example the John Temple case above. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment: Quotation: ‘Aaemn784 seemingly does not understand the distinction between a publication that is notable and therefore eligible for an article on Wikipedia, and a publication that is considered a reliable source that can be cited in a Wikipedia article.’ I strongly recommend that such speculative or suggestive comments are avoided in the future, especially when used instead of argumentation. It appears clearly that both lacking notability and lacking reliability are among the reasons for deletion. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment If Aaemn784's main concern is that some articles on Wikipedia cite Cracroft's Peerage, then perhaps the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard might be a better venue for those concerns. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment: As one sees, the deletion proposal is built upon several issues, e.g. both lacking notability and lacking reliability. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires a publication to be "reliable" in order to have an article here, so the nominator's unsourced claims about that mean very little. I've already furnished five examples of publications that are notable though unreliable, and still have Wikipedia articles. The issue here is whether or not Cracroft's Peerage is notable. It is notable because it is discussed in the six reliable sources I mentioned earlier, as well as a number of others that I didn't mention, as shown in a Google News Archive search. We don't count basic Google hits here and compare thousands of hits for one topic against millions of hits for another topic, and thereby conclude that the first topic is not notable. That is a well-known argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Even two or three solid, reliable, independent sources are sufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see whether there have been similar discussions on Wikipedia. Beside that, please provide, if you have, 'solid, reliable, independent sources' giving CP notability. That is a minimum when claiming that CP is notable. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the search engine hits are not an argument for, but rather an indication of, lacking notability. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The raw number of Google hits is irrelevant in this debate and indicates nothing, so there is no benefit to you in continuing to mention it. The vast majority of raw Google hits on any given topic mean nothing in terms of Wikipedia notability. It is necessary to separate wheat from chaff. This Google News Archive Search shows that Cracroft's Peerage has been discussed by many reliable sources in England, Scotland and the United States. There is also a Russian source, although I am not able to evaluate its reliability, since I don't read Russian. I see what I think is a Latvian source called Apollo as well. This Google News Archive search also shows that Cracroft's Peerage and its publisher have been discussed by reliable sources in Germany such as Stern and Netzeitung. I can read German laboriously. It is also discussed in the Hungarian publication Origo, but I am not sure if that publication is considered reliable, since I don't read Hungarian. Most of these are the kind of sources that establish notability by Wikipedia standards. Any further mention of the claimed unreliability of Cracroft's Peerage should be directed to the proper venue, and ought to be based on what reliable sources say, rather than on any original research conducted by the nominator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name or book being mentioned in newspapers (hereunder in their gossip articles about royals etc.) is remarkably different than in an explicitly relevant circumstance, be it in an article about peerage reference books, being recognised by (relevant scientific) newspapers. Furthermore, it is known to all that reporters often (often uncritically and with haste) use Wikipedia, which they expect to contain correct information, but which sometimes has lacks or errors of various types. (For the foreign/non-English newspapers: They often translate directly from English newspapers, wherefore they to a large extent may be excluded from consideration.) To me, and as far as I have seen on Wikipedia, being notable is, generally, the combination of scholars/experts having their work published by a recognised third-part. This is a good basic rule to follow, as Wikipedia otherwise would drown in private solo-projects like CP, which is written, published, and promoted by exactly the same layman. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major newspapers with good reputations for independent editorial control, accuracy, fact-checking and error correction are considered reliable sources here, and are routinely cited in a wide range of articles on Wikipedia. This is not a topic, such as a highly technical medical or scientific matter, that demands reliance solely on scholarly or "expert" sources, whatever those would be regarding the subject matter at hand. In my humble American opinion, the BBC and The Times are reliably sources when it comes to British peerage. But I could be wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing the cards again. 1.) That a newspaper generally has good reputations, does not guarantee that mistakes might not occur. For example the New York Times, I think, were some years ago fooled to completeness by a man with educational claims which I do not remember here and now. (Yes, maybe were they fooled into believing that CP is an expert's work when they checked this article on Wikipedia.) 2.) It is irrelevant whether the BBC and the Times are reliable sources what concerns British peerage; they do not make CP less home-made, less self-published, or more notable.

As I have pointed at, the relevant factor is not in which newspaper CP happens to be used as a source, but in which kind of article. CP's appearance in one of these gossip articles about royals – articles that themselves tend to be rather superficial and unreliable in the choice of words, the presentation of facts, etc. –, does not give CP any mention-worthy academical credit/reputation. However, in an article about e.g. peerage, for instance, and this in a generally reliable newspaper, it would indeed be a few steps on CP's mile-long way to notability.

If CP shall gain notability through being mentioned in two or three recognised, independent newspapers, it should, the way that I see it, be in articles about the peerage per se, and not one with gossip and 'latest news' about the Duchess of Cornwall. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You write, Aaemn784 that "It is irrelevant whether the BBC and the Times are reliable sources what concerns British peerage; they do not make CP less home-made, less self-published, or more notable." Notability in Wikipedia terms derives exactly from discussion of the topic by reliable sources. Your opinion is that the coverage is limited to "gossip". I don't think that most of the publications we are discussing are known as purveyors of "gossip". When these publications discuss various people's ancestry and refer to Cracroft's Peerage as the source of their information, then that confers notability on Cracroft's Peerage. It is quite telling that you have not yet been able to produce a single reliable source that describes the publication as unreliable. I've furnished evidence and so far, you haven't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all contributions in this discussion. I believe that we now have presented a sufficient summary of opinions and arguments, and as such made it clear that we have different definitions of the concept notability: the ultra-loose and the normal, respectively.

In general (i.e. not addressed to specific persons), I would like to emphasise the following: Good argumentation should always be preferred when taking a decision. One must not be lead into believing that massive amounts of text necessarily are academically heavy. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think in this case I would look to see if it's discussed in reliable books and journals, and as I can find no such use on Google Books and Google Scholar. And in fact I can't find any significant discussion in Cullen's link, just use (which is quite different), and many of the articles seem to be about its editor and not the publication. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Lambiam 15:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farciya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A Google search returns no such a place. Does this place really exist? Tachfin (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's now called "El Farcya", and there are plenty of google sources - [30]. Any reason why you've nominated this twice today? Grutness...wha? 04:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, if you want to know where it is, I'd check the United Nations map of Western Sahara - [31] - it's clearl;y marked in the country's northeast. Grutness...wha? 04:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated a second time since at first the discussion link was red and it seemed that it got closed immediately. Yep, place exists although a Google search return only 174 results majority of them wiki mirrors. Check out German Wiki [[32]], far better and more accurate article, it's actually a small military garrison, not a town.

Hope somebody would close this, I'm apologizing for the inconvenience. Regards --Tachfin (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a town (which also houses a garrison). The town is twinned with Girona in Catalunya. --Lambiam 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Close due to there being two open nominations for the same page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farciya (2nd nomination)). This is a Non admin closure Guerillero | My Talk 06:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farciya[edit]

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

No references, a Google search returns nothing. Does such a place even exist? Tachfin (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's now called "El Farcya", and there are plenty of google sources - [33] Grutness...wha? 04:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Close per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farciya (2nd nomination)

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 Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. And delete. Sandstein 05:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic[edit]

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

A list of political parties in a Single party state according to the article itself. Well that is weird Tachfin (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic per the above and common sens, as it is the case with other single-party states: List of political parties in North Korea, List of political parties in Turkmenistan--Tachfin (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redir to Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Gelbwaks[edit]

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

Proposing page be deleted (or at the very least the redirect be restored) as the subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Subject hasn't acted since 1971, and his only credit to date is that of Chris #1 on The Partridge Family. Pinkadelica ^♣ 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:ANYBIO. Very smart parents to take their child out of acting before he went the way of some others with whom he worked (not mentioning names, but two were his co-stars). Interesting too, that decades after his last appearance in front of a camera, he received TWO TV Land Awards nominations... one in 2003 and the other in 2006, and is STILL being written of in multiple reliable sources long after his series ended (though still seen in syndication). My thought here is that WP:ANYBIO is the consideration over WP:ENT, and we do have considerations of his exceeding the needs of WP:GNG as well [34]... even if he is never heard from again. People [35] CNN [36] and some 119 others,[37] as well as numerous books.[38] We don't toss the notable simply because their time of peak notability has passed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 14 August 2011 UTC)

Keep He had a starring role (although briefly), in a TV show that was as popular then as it still is today (maybe even more so). The episodes continue to run in syndication and his name appears prominently in the opening titles each episode.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, he may have had a starring role, but he has had not much else besides that. Also, there are no 3rd party references.Curb Chain (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IF the article was properly sourced, I would go with extremely weak keep. However, the only source given, IMDB, is not reliable. Unless it can be reliably sourced, this ess*entially unsourced biography of a living person should be deleted. Safiel (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No longer an unsourced BLP. Sorry, and do not mean to be WP:TLDR, but it seems I am seeing reasons for deletion being based upon
A) someone else having not fixed it,

B) a requiring in contravention to WP:NTEMP that he must continue to have coverage,
(he does, so that invalid argument is moot)

C) that the easily found sources have not been added.

D) the subject had only a short acting career

"A", "B", and "C", are not reasons to delete, and not how we determine notability and, with the greatest of respects, notability is not dependent upon sources being IN an article. Per the applicable guideline: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation", which means that third party references do not HAVE to be in an article, just so long as they DO exist and can be found by anyone searching for them and can be added through regular editing.

When an article does not meet one of deletion policy's "Reasons for deletion", as this one does not, we are encouraged to look to deleion policy's suggested "Alternatives to deletion" and note its very first line that states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". And while point "D" has merit, WP:ENT does not overrule the enduring coverage of this individual that meets WP:GNG and thus WP:BIO. For actors that do a couple things, never get coverage, and then disappear into the void, ENT would best apply; but not for those who recieved coverage at the time and had coverage continue for that and subsequent events for almost 40 years.

However, and even though it is encouraged that surmountable problems are not adequate reasons to call for deletion, I wish to appease and have just added of few of the easily found sources spoken of above, showing that this person is still being written of long after the time of his peak notability, as enduring coverage is one of the signs of enduring notability. Was not the least bit difficult. If an issue can be fixed, that lack is no reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This being an unsourced BLP was not one of the reasons why I listed it for deletion. If that were the sole problem, I would have sourced the article. The fact that sources can be found about him doesn't necessarily make him notable as the show he appeared on was popular and follow-ups or "where are they nows" are a given. As stated in my rationale, I feel that the subject does not meet notability requirements. He appeared in 25 episodes of one series forty years ago and left acting. Far as I can tell, he doesn't have a cult following and he hasn't made a signification contributions to the field of entertainment. Unless we have started completely disregarding policy for notability inclusions, I see no reason to retain this biography on a person who is likely a private citizen now. Pinkadelica ^♣ 02:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not one of your reasons. I simply listed and refuted all the reasons being given for deletion. He did make other contributions to acting after he left that series (though for the most part series-related, as it is logical), and he has received award nominations specifically targeted to recognize the contributions of thos involved in those older productions. Also, that he may be a private citizen now is irrelevent as far as notability is concerned. And as far as I have been able to assess, no policy is being ignored, and a minor article on this fellow serves the project and those readers who wish to to learn about the topic. And though I would not go so far as to call thousands of baby boomers a cult, Partridge Family fans exist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article now has sources and subject starred in nationally broadcast and internationally known program; period since he resigned from acting and length of role do not matter here, and article is certainly much more detailed than most child actors who have retired (where usually they never had a word written about them again). Nate • (chatter) 03:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's well-stated reasoning.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep now sourced. Barely notable. Safiel (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zuhrah ibn Kilab[edit]

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

Islamic figure. Can find no evidence subject meets GNG. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. I have not found any sources discussing the subject. Edward321 (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than 180 hits at Google Books for Zuhrah ibn Kilab or Zuhrah bin Kilab, who appears to be the patriarch of a major tribe as well as a direct ancestor of Muhammad. Searching for a transliterated name in English tends to under-represent the actual sources so there are undoubtedly more. Let's beware of WP:Systemic bias. The article needs expansion (right now it mostly talks about who he is related to) but he is clearly a notable person in the Islamic tradition. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of those GBooks hits are false hits, they mention descendants of Zuhrah ibn Kilab. The few exceptions only note that he existed. If sources that actually discuss Zuhrah ibn Kilab are found, I would be happy to change my !vote. Edward321 (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was the progenitor of the Banu Zuhrah clan and also the great-grandfather of Muhammad's mother. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is referenced to a work by ancient writer Ibn Hisham and works by modern scholars Martin Lings and Karen Armstrong. Improve through normal editing rather than delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keyspace (data store)[edit]

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

This defunct database is not notable, and fails to even assert notability. What few sources are provided are not relevant, not verifiable, not reliable and/or self-published. I'm taking it to AfD following an unsuccessful speedy nomination a while back and other problematic contributions by an editor more recently. -- samj _in^out 03:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Some comments:

Keyspace is no longer maintained.
It is notable because it is the first open-source database to be based on the Paxos replication algorithm, one of the most basic algorithms in distributed computing. It is also the only acessible open-source implementations of the Paxos algorithm.
I don't know what is means for an article reviewing a database to be relevant. Relevant to what?
Same goes for verifiability and reliability.
The sources are not self-published.
I don't see how "other problematic contributions" by user Sae1962 have anything to do with this issue.

Mtrencseni (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 3 of 5 inline refs are under the scalien.com domain (as is your email as Scalien co-founder, so let me throw WP:COI on the pile) and the other 2 relate to other products by Google[rs]. Don't get me wrong, your product sounds interesting — just not verifiably notable as required for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- samj _in^out 12:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not everything that is notable to a niche group is notable by Wikipedia standards. Joe Chill (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing in Google books for this, or the company that markets it, Scalien, or it's successor product ScalienDB. The third-party sources given in the article that aren't blogs don't represent significant coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dancing Did[edit]

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

Article created by a user of the same name as the notable music critic who claims that this is his favourite ever UK band. But that seems to be the limit of their notability. Unreferenced since creation except to non-independent or self-published sources. The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Martin Strong's The Great Indie Discography has a bio and discography for the band (including a single on Stiff Records and an album on Kamera Records, later reissued by Cherry Red). They also have an entry in Barry Lazell's Indie Hits 1980-1989, with their album placing at #25 on the UK Independent Chart. They also have an entry in The Virgin Encyclopedia of Indie & New Wave and this Allmusic review. I'll add these later when I'm back online.--Michig (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Maybe just about enough coverage in the encyclopaedias/discographical books now referenced in the article (and also in Guinness Encyclopaedia of Popular Music). AllyD (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With one album and a handful of singles, nobody is saying they shook up the music world or anything. But there's clearly enough sourcing and notability here to justify an article. Sure, it's usually a bad idea to write about your personal favorite band (or indeed personal favourite anything), but that alone isn't cause to delete either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Govere[edit]

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

Excepting the Elle Girl and BNET sources, all of the material in this article when I first found it was/is either unsourced, or supported by self-published sources or sources whose content is user-generated. Her one accomplishment in those two acceptable sources, being selected by Disney and McDonald's to be a Disney-UNESCO Millennium Dreamers Ambassador, hardly confers upon her the notability needed to have her own article. In the Elle Girl source, she is mentioned in a tiny blurb along with 23 other people, and in the BNET piece, most of the description of her activities is written autobiographically. A more detailed analysis of the sources that are or were in the article is on that article's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:N and to spare. She's been the primary focus of multiple articles in unrelated reliable sources. San Diego Union-Tribune [39], The Chronicle of Philanthropy [40], The Zimbabwean [41] NewsDay [42], Brass Magazine, [43], and The Paly Voice [44]. Besides those, she has been the non-primary focus of articles in the April 2002 Teen People (20 teens who will change the world), Elle Girl, and BNET. And she's a cast member of The Real World: San Diego (2011). While none of those is individually the New York Times, cumulatively, that's quite a lot. --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Paly Voice is a high school newspaper. - MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. And the Real World San Diego is a national US TV program, and the two Zimbabwean papers are two national Zimbabwean papers, and the San Diego Union Tribune is a respected California paper, and BNET is the paper for an important organization, and the other things are what they are too. To quote Sam Spade, " – but that's enough. All those on one side. Maybe some of them are unimportant. I won't argue about that. But look at the number of them." --GRuban (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure Brass magazine is an acceptable source? I relied a lot on that source for the material I put into the article, largely on the basis on the insistence given to sources like that above, but in re-checking my post on that article's talk page, I am reminded that a disclaimer at the top of the page tells visitors, "Interested in becoming a brass contributor? Click Here". Is this an indication that it's like a wiki? Nightscream (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, first I've seen of it, frankly ... No, it's not a wiki, it's a real published mag, just looking for contributors. Some mags do that. Ah, here: [45] Started in 2004, circulation of 500,000. Not the New York Times, but not self-published either. I'd say reliable enough for non-controversial issues. --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seasteading Institute City Islands[edit]

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

This article is based almost entirely on a highly erroneous articles in Details, which was widely picked up by the media. In reality, The Seasteading Institute is a non-profit entity and has no specific plans to create any seasteads. That will be left entirely to commercial ventures (so far there is only one [46]).
-- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 02:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per sources cited by nom. The article is based on erroneous information.--JayJasper (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarva deslauriers[edit]

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

Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Providing a rationale for deletion which the nominator failed to do. Possible hoax. Known only for one event, if even that is verifiable, and fails the notability guideline for biographies. The subject of the article is claimed to be "the smallest baby ever born," with a birth weight of 2 pounds, 2 ounces, or 964 grams. This is an extremely low birth weight, by present medical classification, but per [47] there have apparently been smaller babies who were born alive, and who survived for appreciable some period of time. Babies with far lower birth weights have reportedly been born and survived: [48]. [49] says that presently 90% of babies over 800 grams survive. Granted, there have been advances since 1985, but some small preemies survived even then. Some reliable sources would be needed to verify that even at the time of this person's birth, it set any kind of record. At Google Book search and Google scholar, I could find no references to this person in relation to l;ow birth weight. The one newspaper cited in the article is not available online, so I could not verify it. Even if the one newspaper article claimed this was "the smallest baby ever born," it would lack credibility to substantiate an extreme medical claim. Edison (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison's search for sources and excellent analysis of the underlying issues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, known for one event only, and even that isn't very notable. Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Records. JIP | Talk 07:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very clearly fails notability test on WP:BLP1E grounds. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There have been other recent records of the world's smallest baby. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Grandaddy discography#Self-released albums/EPs. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prepare to Bawl[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grandaddy discography#Self-released albums/EPs where it is now covered adequately. Did this really need an AFD?--Michig (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Deletion is not really necessary considering the redirect will be sufficient for this low-traffic article. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 01:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ditto with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Newport to the Ancient Empty Streets of L.A[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Dylan boot with no assertion of notability. Even if the performance is notable (which is not asserted), it's not clear that this release of the recording it. There are hundreds of Dylan boots and any one with an article on Wikipedia (e.g. Great White Wonder) needs to have sources to show notability per WP:MUSIC. The only sources are RateYourMusic (explicitly disallowed per WP:ALBUM), an Angelfire site, and bobsboots.com. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Patterson (comedian)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor non-notable comedian, article mostly sourced to his own website and to a minor trade newsletter or something. Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep in agreement with the 2008 AFD. Looking at the findsources above, I see the darn this IS sourcable to meet WP:ENT,[50] WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO. I hate that WP:NOEFFORT by others could become the reason a notable topic might be tossed. See Winnipeg Free Press[51] and Toronto Star [52] as representative examples. There are more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - he's a local comedian who's done a radio show; sorry, Mike, I just don't see this as the requisite substantial coverage. (And an IMDb listing proves nothing; heck, I've got an IMDb listing.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's done a bit more than just "a radio show", and the article in the Winnipeg Free Press is significant and in-depth. I believe that such as Winnipeg Free Press and Toronto Star are indicative of notability to Canada, and even local only to Canada, such is good enough for en.Wikipedia. I'll give it more work tomorrow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update Article has been expanded.[53] to show meeting of GNG and WP:ANYBIO. This fellow has done much more than just "a radio show,[54] and his work has received recognition from media and his peers.[55] Notable to Canada is fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is clear he meets guidelines. Nominated for 'Best Male Stand-up' at a national comedy award ceremony several times clearly illustrates this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article did not state this when first nominated but it was not too difficult to find and source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article now crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with sourcing from reliable third-party sources about the subject in focus and in depth. Good effort on the save. - Dravecky (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Termulo[edit]

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

After blocking creator, I found that the prod had been removed, so here we are. Does not appear notable. Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Possibly notable. See Google News Archives results. Article is a bit too messed up though to have anything salvageable. Would need a complete rewrite if ever.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Read through the news search and didn't find anything that was "significant coverage", or in depth, per WP:GNG. A fallen officer has had more coverage (200 with many in depth and significant), and was not considered notable by the active editors of MILHIST. The subject of this article is known for being on a reality show, and no significant coverage was made of him as an individual. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. There's a weak consensus to delete this article but per Piotrus's comment, I'm going to close this per WP:TNT. Yes I know it's not a policy or guideline but this way if someone wishes to write a sourced NPOV article about this subject, it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social practice[edit]

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

The only apparent justification for this article is that a workshop on "Social Practices" is offered at the California College of the Arts. The term itself is a somewhat vague method of describing a number of practices and these topics are covered elsewhere. There are no sources available to support the use of this term as a specific practice and this very much falls under WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:OR. freshacconci talktalk 13:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 13:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term "social practice" is used in Mao Zedong's 1963 essay "Where do correct ideas come from?", so it is not a neologism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, Mao wasn't speaking about art and he wrote that in 1963. This is a term coined in the 21st century about contemporary art, thus a neologism in that context. Neologism doesn't necessarily mean creating a brand-new word. freshacconci talktalk 00:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO, WP:DICDEF, and WP:OR. The article largely reads like a promotion for the graduate program at the California College of the Arts and Portland State University's annual conference. The other part of it reads like a simple definition of the term. What's left (in the Definition portion of the article) is original research-- it contains unsourced descriptions of the term and it is supposedly different from other terms. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is about an (apparently new) art form called social practice art, as defined in this article. If this article is kept, it should be renamed social practice art to align with its definition in the article. This art form has no apparent relationship to Mao’s ideas. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if kept, move per Life of Riley. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article is a mess, and was a mess since it was first created. While the term "social practice" is notable and should be written about, I doubt that anything from the current disaster that is our page on the subject is even salvageable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven and Lloyd Productions[edit]

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

Nonnotable Youtube video site, sources don't satisfy WP:V and WP:WEB. Page appears to have been posted by site owner. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Checked the refs, they're YouTube "entrepreneurs" as noted by the nom. Probably students, its nothing I couldn't do right now. Szzuk (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be notable. The Vanderbilt Hustler are pretty notable references; as for the others I don't know. Maybe needs more references? Shengzuh (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Vanderbilt Hustler is a student-run newspaper, and while I'm not trying to slam a student newspaper, it seems unreasonable to place a student newspaper on the same level of reliability as a state or national news source. The group has had a few videos picked up (although the Comedy Central assertion is unsourced. There evidence that this production group has been the subject of independent commentary in reliable sources is weak. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Pentangeli[edit]

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

Minor character in The Godfather Part II--not nearly notable enough for an article of his own. Blueboy 96 14:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable film, non-notable character. The chracter is mentioned in this book and this book, but it is not embedded in any sort of commentary, just quoting dialogue from the film. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a plausable search term to The Godfather Part II#Cast, where this minor character has all the mention it needs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footballistically Arsenal[edit]

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

Podcast which does not have its own website, although it does have notable presenters (but they aren't notable for presenting this podcast!). And a quick Google search shows no third-party sources that confer any sort of notability at all. —Half Price 14:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article contains no sources supporting notability. A search for sources only includes Apple listings to obtain the podcast, a facebook page, urban dictionary, and other unreliable sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Material is unsourced and therefore not mergeable. Sandstein 05:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orube Special[edit]

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

No sources, no context, doesn't appear to have any notability outside W.I.T.C.H. fandom. Powers ^T 15:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant character info to List of W.I.T.C.H. characters and delete. Sources about this issues are wikias, promotional places to purchase the issue, and forums. No coverage of the story per WP:GNG. Some character info may be salvaged and merged into the list article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be impressed if you managed to extract any useful, cited "character info" from this mess of an article. Powers ^T 20:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Neutrality^talk 23:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kanny Theng[edit]

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

WP:N, although there are clear claims of notability here, they require evidence via reliable sources. English souring was non-existent except for a telephone directory, Chinese sourcing deserves a harder look as I don't speak the language, but I did make an attempt, moreover, the most likely claim of notability, that of "starring" in "Little Nyonya", is strangely absent from our large article on the subject. Additional sources would be gratefully welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 15:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Article has only been partially translated from Chinese to English. It's not too surprising that someone working in China would not have extensive English language coverage, and worse, much of what is asserted[56] remains indecipherable to me. Assistance would be apreciated in accurate translation of that section (google translate keeps messing up her name) AND of these news sources found when searching for her in under her Chinese name 伶恩: [57] If they show her as receiving significant independent coverage, then I will be back to opine !keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be an ample amount of notable sources, although I did find this small mention here, but it isn't enough for an encyclopedia. Other than that, the other sources were websites with photos and a blog.SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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