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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:ORG. no consensus, 2.5 years ago but I fail to see significant coverage for an org existing for over 60 years. [1]. trove gives a few hits [2]. but most of the coverage is small and in the Christian press. We need more third party coverage like mainstream papers which I don't see. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve article. We're going to see quite a few more nominations like this. A couple of years ago people demonstrated that there were sources, and it resulted in the article being kept - but the sources were never added to the article. However, our deletion rules do affirm that the sources only have to exist, and don't have to be in the article. In fact, another significant reference has been published this year - Muriel Porter's Sydney Anglicans and the Threat to World Anglicanism devotes page 5 to AFES. AFES has also been mentioned in the controversy surrounding the book covered by the ABC - here and here. Anyway, I guess I'd better add these to the article... StAnselm (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I find it ludicrous to suggest that the Austrailan affiliate of International Fellowship of Evangelical Students is NN. This will be an umbrella body for university Christian Unions. In my country (UK) these are comnmonly the largest student sociiety in theri universities. I do not know about Australia, but guess that the position is similar. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Articles in specialist press, providing that press is independent of the subject, are fine to establish notability for religious organisations -- as for many other subject areas. (I acknowledge, however, that sometimes these nominations do result in improvements being actually made to articles!)
• Keep Obviously notable. Another important book is Out of the Tower, John and Moyra Prince, ANZEA Publishers 1987. --99of9 (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per StAnselms comments and the paragraph character in the article - specifically the controversy issue raised by the abc items - they answer significant coverage SatuSuro 08:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Henry Cooke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find sufficient indicia of notability of this person, and am not even sure that on its face his bio suggests that he is notable. Unreferenced bio. Tagged for notability for two years. Article created by SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is unreferenced, but even if everything in the article is completely true and verifiable, you are left with a well educated but largely non-notable Indian civil servant from the early part of the last century? --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to copyvio and tagged as such. The article content, aside form the lede is copied from the Waterford County Museum web site. This does raise the question of notability. Why would the Waterford County Museum bother with a biography on a nobody? It would seem that he was a senior civil servant, with the highest posting appearing to be that of Collector. This would seem to be District collector when looking around in our Wikipedia articles. It appears the position had significant power for governing a district, but over time, that was whittled down. He might or might not meet WP:POLITICIAN. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The latter part of the deletion discussion consist of the finding of sources to satisfy notability, none of which have been rebutted by those supporting deletion. –MuZemike 21:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stark Raving Mad (1983 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found zero significant coverage for this film. No one that is involved in the film has an article. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have a feeling it was a straight-to-VHS release, or maybe even a TV film. I certainly remember watching it about 20 years ago. No sources though so I won't lose any sleep if it goes. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IMDb is the only one who seems to have noticed, so it fails WP:NF. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Contemporary sources show it does exist. Screen World, 1984 [3], Motion Picture Guide, 1985[4]. See also [5] (minor mention only). The movie poster is on ebay multiple times, see, e.g., [6]. I am wondering whether its really a 1983 release originally, though, because Murder Run seems to date from 1976.[7].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. IMDB notices everything - we need at (very) least one more external source for notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment That actor George Hood and director Russ Fast do not have articles simply means they do not YET have articles and that Wikipedia is not complete. And because IMDB is itself incomplete or inaccurate, its weakness is not a valid reason upon which to base a delete. User:Milowent gave a decent clue based upon his own research, showing that this film has a production and theatrical history that predates the 1983 video re-release by at least 5 years. Looking further, this pre-internet, pre-IMDB film was released under different names and has sourcability under those earlier names... rather than only under a 1986 video release title. It has been released as Murder Run in Australia and Belgium, as Execution in Canada, and as Rock Baby in West Germany. A quick look under its working title of Rockaday Richie and the Queen of the Hop finds Seattle Times telling us it was produced in Portland,[8] The Oregonian giving us some production details,[9] we have Hollywood Theater telling us it "the first locally produced feature film to get international, theatrical distribution," and The Oregonian sharing that the film was "financed by the late Macheezmo Mouse founder Tiger Warren during his '70s filmmaking period." And what's with this 2002 writeup of Rockaday Richie and the Queen of the Hop from the University of Mississippi?[10] Not quite a film noticed only by IMDB... and the delete arguments above seem based upon those deficits of IMDB... a source long-declared as unreliable. Ouch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that Wikipedia is not complete, but I added it because it might point to non-notability after having so many articles, not that it shows non-notability. What I thought showed non-notability is WP:NF not being met. I was not aware of any other titles and I never mentioned IMDB. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You were not one who referred to IMDB. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I missed the release section in the article. Well, I was dumb in this case. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And even that section did not adress its sourcable working title of Rockaday Richie and the Queen of the Hop. It was User:Milowent who got me digging when he discovered the 1976 theatrical release title, and that got me digging further. It is admitedly a headache when video release for any one film uses so many different titles. Makes our work here that much more difficult. So no harm, no foul. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now based on MQS's additional findings, no need to be hasty based on what seems a likely good case for notability. I have also found Don Gronquist on facebook and sent him a message looking for more details.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now there are sources to suggest it is more notable than at first thought. I was aware of the Execution and Murder Run titles, but not the Rockaday Richie one. I didn't find a lot by way of references when I created this, but as Wikipedia is a work in progress I hoped someone more familiar with the subject may be able to expand it. In truth it would probably be difficult to find sources for a lot of pre-Internet age films unless they happened to be particularly notable. My own knowledge of this film comes from watching it one weekend in 1988, an event I noted in my diary at the time. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collective Value Synergy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

promotional article about non-notable academic neologism. No hits for the phrase in G scholar or G books, or even G news. . The refs given for use of the concept do not even include the word. The only Google hit is actually for "collective value (synergy) in the English translation of a Hebrew document [11] DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. a recent addition into the project management vocabulary and is regarded as a contrarian approach to group interaction. In the context of organizational behavior, a Collective Value Synergy follows the view that a cohesive group is more than the sum of its parts, and in furtherance a group sharing a single common value is able to achieve collective success. The inference being that a CVS group is much more likely to succeed than a group exhibiting only one of the two attributes. I hope your coffee is strong. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, more management-speak nonsense; adds nothing not already found in the other MBA goobledygook pages. Hairhorn (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ^talk 14:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Michael Pulliyattel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication he meets WP:BIO, and the few footnotes provided do not actually meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is almost a CV or a resume. He doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or any other notability requirements that I have found. A google search for his english name yields a few sources; however, they are mostly local bios. Another search for his malayan name yielded fewer results. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just an ordinary clergyman, really. Would need to be a bishop or higher to be notable, since he fails WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- might just about be prominent enough to be notable to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor Marvel Comics characters. Courcelles 23:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperstorm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Cambalachero (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor character of just a pair of comic book storylines. All the info in the article is pure plot, there are no independent sources or real-world perspective. "Known relatives" is a nest of original research, most of the characters listed have never interacted in any way with this one (for example, Valeria Richards was created some years afterwards). Cambalachero (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of minor Marvel Comics characters. Keep only the valuable information. --Crazy runner (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^talk 14:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outsource magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Non-notable magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "...making it the first magazine in the outsourcing sector to achieve this audited status" is weak, but is it therefore notable? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not according to Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Errr, both 3 and 5. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Blinking heck, can't believe I am voting to keep a magazine with that kind of circulation, but I have to agree with BWilkins, it seems to pass the criteria. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Meets requirements. It is a niche market magazine with notability established and cited circulation. Deleting it would be like deleting an article on the "number 1 singer from Formosa" simply because they only sold 11,000 copies of their album. Note: just because I cleaned this article up a bit does not mean I have any stake in the article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2011 Florence shootings. Two articles on the same event,merger is the only logical option. Notability of the event can be considered anew on the merged article if desired in a fresh nomination Courcelles 23:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Florence attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Notability (events)    Thorncrag  22:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - in what sense is it less notable than the Belgium attack? Both have plenty of news articles about them. This resulted in 3 deaths, whereas the Belgium attack only resulted in twice that number, which is no big difference.--3 times 3 is 9 (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And to add to my point, what makes this less worthy for Wikipedia than the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting which resulted in less deaths? That article exists and a separate article exists about the perpetrator as well.--3 times 3 is 9 (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Merge with 2011 Florence shootings. I think as a general rule notorious slayings like this are notable. But I don't like comments trying to justify on the basis of other articles at the best of times, but much less so with crimes. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2011 Florence shootings. Ian Spackman (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge This is the same article as 2011 Florence shootings. However, it is definitely notable. WP:NOTNEWS states that news items with enduring notability should be included. Poyani (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - for now...--BabbaQ (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. It's been covered in the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Le Monde and the BBC, which seems to indicate notability.Autarch (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Having created the article, I am happy for the article to re-direct to 2011 Florence shootings and this debate can be closed.--3 times 3 is 9 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2011 Florence shootings.User:Lucifero4
• Merge The article can be merged with 2011 Florence shootings. --C h i n n Z ^{(talk | Contrib)} 11:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 21:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technopark (Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Cancelled station. Artem Karimov (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is plenty of evidence online (in the English language) that this railway station is already under construction and it seems generally accepted on Wikipedia that railway stations can have articles written about them. It seems it will serve an important new business district of Russia's capital city. Sionk (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though it begs the question, why does Artem Karimov describe it as 'cancelled'?

• Keep same reasons as Sionk --TheRico152 (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sionk. Not sure why ever purported station gets an article, but that clearly has been the consistent policy to date. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep – "Cancelled station" rationale for deletion is false, as it's construction has not been cancelled: "Nagatino i-land will get a much-needed boost in accessibility with the construction of metro station Technopark, which will begin in 2012, according to the Moscow transport development plan."— (article) from The Moscow Times. Therefore, no valid argument for deletion exists in the nomination. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Under WP:CRYSTAL I am always dubious about articles on proposed stations that might never get built. HOwever the imminent start of construction measn that it is probably pointless to delete it now as it woul merely have to be re-created in a few months time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)

  When it starts, then we will have an article. Not before then. Artem Karimov (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Zamoskvoretskaya Line. A station not yet in service and without significant coverage. The redirect can be undone in the future. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It gets coverage. [12] Dream Focus 21:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We are talking about Moscow Metro proposed station, not Technoparks in general. Artem Karimov (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to be clear, that's a link to search results where it is completely unclear how significant the coverage about the station is. If you can point out specifically what articles constitute the coverage you claim, that would be helpful. -- Whpq (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • A reference in the article already points to an article about this called Metro station "Technopark" in Moscow [13] There is ample coverage you can see about this station. Some of the coverage in the Google news archive search results I link to are about the technopark in Moscow. You can scan through the results and easily pick those out. Dream Focus 08:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was not referring to the one reference in the article, I was referring to the search results. --- Whpq (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That part was for Artem, I pointing out that there is only one technopark project in Moscow, that the one we're talking about. When you click on the search results for "technopark" and "Moscow" were you unable to find even one valid reference? Dream Focus 15:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I cannot find signficant coverage about the metro station as opposed to the Technopark development. Since this is an article about the metro station, the coverage needs to be about the metro station, and not just an incidental mention of the metro station as part of an article about the technopark. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Its the same thing. The Metro station Technopark in Moscow. Most of the results are hidden behind paywalls, so linking to them would be pointless, but you can read their summaries and find that the most recent ones are clearly about this. We should probably find the official name for this and rename the article to clarify. Dream Focus 15:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • They are not the same thing. A metro station is a subway stop. A technopark is a technology oriented business park. I've looked and found nothing that indicates that any of the articles cover the metro station. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • http://www.bakutoday.net/in-january-2011-will-begin-construction-of-the-metro-station-technopark-moscow.html is coverage for the metro station, which is in Moscow, and part of the technopark. Or would they just name it technopark if it wasn't part of that? I assumed it was located at the technopark, so both of them could just go together. Anyway, all train stations are notable, since their schedules/activities get published regularly, and surely more than one news article about this exists, there certainly many in Russian. Dream Focus 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "all train stations are notable" would be true if it were an actual operating train station, which it isn't. And insisting there must be more coverage doesn't make it true. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Do you believe that while one newspaper covered it in English, and there isn't even one Moscow newspaper also covering it in Russian? You only need two news sources giving it proper coverage. Dream Focus 16:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This argument about coverage is all well and good but, as I mentioned in my opening comment, the consensus on Wikipedia is that railway stations are automatically notable (rather like secondary schools, churches etc). The available sources in the English language are useful for the English language Wikipedia and, as Dream Focus has said, quite probably means there is plenty more available in Russian which we can ask someone to help us find if necessary. The real question is whether or not this station will actually get built. The start date for public infrastructure projects often slip, but I find it hard to imagine a new business district will not have a railway/metro station. I suppose the alternative to keeping the article would be to incubate it for 3 months or so until the first sod of earth is cut. Sionk (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I didn't put forth a !vote opf delete, I recommended redirection. And when the station actually gets built, we are likely to see more coverage, and the redirect can be undone. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 21:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queens' Guard (College of William and Mary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A group of university students playing at soldiers. I see no indication of notability (that is, substantial coverage by reliable third party sources) in the article or in the Google search results.  Sandstein  20:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any usable content into the relevant section of the W&M article Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The only independent coverage I can find is this, which is a crowning example of trivial coverage.... fails WP:GNG. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• On the fence - it seems to be unique, so there ought to be good sources. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment either there are reliable sources or there aren't. "There must be sources" doesn't cut it for an AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete While I agree with Bearian that there ought to be sources out there about them, I have been unable to find any. Benuski (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 21:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy McLaughlin (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A football player that has played one-year of college and recently signed with the Philadelphia Union. Has not satisfied the requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL. Specifically, "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable". Recreate article when he has played a match for the Union. PROD was contested Bgwhite (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Having never played in a fully pro league, and without significant coverage, this footballer fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL standards. --TheRico152 (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not even close. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 21:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ramage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find any significant coverage to demonstrate that either WP:BASIC or WP:ACADEMIC are met. His name is mentioned in several publications, but only in passing. SmartSE (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. He has won two prizes (albeit as part of a team), and to honest I cut an academic from Cambridge University more slack than I would from some lesser known uni. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that sufficient to satisfy our criteria? Also, are you suggesting that we should have an article on every academic at CU? SmartSE (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC, or see anything that might meet WP:ACADEMIC. The awards went to entire teams, and most were for one building, the Mapungubwe National Park Interpretive Centre. Suggests we could have certainly have a short section in the 'Mapungubwe National Park' article about its interpretive centre, which could mention its architects, but there's not enough about it in the present article to form the basis of a partial merger. Qwfp (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Qwfp's rationale. Less than significant coverage in independent sources; doesn't meet WP:GNG. Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Most references are not independent third-parties. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 21:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G-Eazy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Independent rapper of questionable notability. Not signed to any label, has not had any single or album appear on any national charts. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Google searches on "G-Eazy" show little significant coverage from independent reliable sources - mainly a lot of primary source social media, and simple appearance listings MikeWazowski (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was moved from the talk page of this AfD. Goodvac (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to me you only want to see this article deleted because I asked you a question and you seem to have taken offence. If you look at the references, they are not questionable as you so wrongly put it.

Also can I add that a request for speedy deletion was rejected at an earlier stage for this article which the reviewer noted that it was indeed notable.

Also I don't understand why the user has marked it as having hardly any references. There are many references included on the article and most of them come from music websites.

I'd also like to add that the article is notable, the cover song has 300,000 views on Youtube which for an independent singer is indeed exposure. The artist has opened for million record sellers such as Lil Wayne and Drake and is currently on a tour.

I also believe that although the user who has put it up for deletion writes that it doesn't have certain aspects that qualify it to be a Music Bio however I believe it does:

'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.'

http://music.yahoo.com/g-eazy/ http://www.tqfmusic.com/posts/tag/g-eazy http://itunes.apple.com/gb/artist/g-eazy/id468636300 http://www.thenoisecollective.com/2011/11/g-eazy-two-last-tour-dates/ http://www.refinedhype.com/hyped/entry/return-of-the-real/ http://blog.nola.com/mariamontoya/2008/09/a_loyola_university_student_le.html

And thats just a fraction of the sources and independent references I can find.

I really cannot fathom what the problem is.

As evidenced by another reviewer/admin the article does pass the criteria:

'02:51, 12 December 2011‎ Jayron32 (talk | contribs)‎ (3,862 bytes) (decline speedy request. Not valid A7 material, as claims of importance are made in the article.'

Therefore the article should be kept.

Drewbik (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is also referenced by Billboard.com:

http://www.billboard.com/column/the-hook/fashion-week-top-10-songs-we-want-on-the-1005340632.story#/column/the-hook/fashion-week-top-10-songs-we-want-on-the-1005340632.story

Drewbik (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the points raised by the page creator above: Jayron's declining the speedy request does not immediately mean the subject is notable - just that a claim of notability existed. This AfD discussion will help determine that. Whatever personal reasons you wish to attribute to it are in error. As to the references you've come up with, only Billboard comes close to being an acceptable source - and it's a opinion piece more about the song than the person. The Yahoo link is just a simple directory listing (in fact, it claims "no results for G-Easy" under its web search item), and is definitely trivial mentions. The iTunes link is just information provided by the artist. tqfmusic, thenoisecollective, refinedhype, and blog.nola.com are all blogs, and don't pass muster with WP:RS. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you won't find results for 'G-easy' as you have suggested, however if you use the name of the artist 'G-Eazy' you do indeed find results! Also, what's the general consensus on blogs from university's, those that list events as like the official programme maker? Drewbik (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable coverage has been found. Click Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and you should spot the Billboard article straight away. [14] Dream Focus 08:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am minded to vote Delete under WP:TOOSOON, but I'd probably stay my hand under the "don't bite the newbies" rule. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless essay. If they get coverage, they get an article. Simple as that. Dream Focus 09:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thought I'd also add that G-Eazy surpasses point 4 of WP:MUSICBIO with flying colours. Has been mentioned in various independent articles and has also been on a national tour with Shwayze as evidenced here [15]. Which both surpasses point 4 and continues to build upon notability.

Drewbik (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One of his songs can also be heard on the recent video game Saints Row: The Third as evidenced by this link [16], more notability?

Drewbik (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with MikeWazowski that the blog citations mentioned do not do much to further the notability cause--individually. However, there are hundreds of such blog and ezine pieces, perhaps more. I think that collectively, they do add weight to the case for notability. And in addition to the Billboard article, there is other coverage to be found from WP:RS sources: Pound (magazine) [17][18], URB (magazine) [19], various briefer mentions in the New Orleans Times-Picayune [20] [21] [22], Offbeat provides an album/video review and a current award nomination for 2011 Best Rap/Hip-Hop Artist. And in addition to the admittedly take-with-a-grain-of-salt Youtube figures already cited, Last.fm's much smaller user base does show 100,000+ plays. Some people, at any rate, have taken note of this guy. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. PositivelyJordan (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 21:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mexifornia clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previously PRODed and now restored; still unreferenced and shows no indication of notability. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 20:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find any reviews or otherwise independent coverage of this clothing store. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Tac Nuke cruftastic Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: You would think that a clothing label would have one g-news hit, just one... a fashion show, a press release, something... but then you'd be wrong Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 21:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lame Ducks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable band, with no charting records The only coverage I've found about them is this but could not find multiple reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks pretty non-notable to me. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails all criteria outlined by wp:band. Chris (talk | contribs) 20:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3, blatant hoax. A7 and G10 were also plausible. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Good (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page certainly doesn't belong here; however, there is a claim to notability. "HE is infomous for his heroic actions, many of which children's lives have been saved." And while I believe this is a hoax, it doesn't seem to be blatant. This is an almost certain delete as lacking notability (even if the lion event was true he would only be notable for one event). Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this page has been repeatedly recreated so I would like to see this deleted and salted. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete A7 as the article makes no credible claim of significance or importance. Giving CPR to a lion at the Houston Zoo and being "most likely the most influential teacher in Houston" are not credible, and those are the only two claims of significance in the article. A7 requires that an article make at least one credible claim of significance in order to avoid speedy deletion, and this article does not. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I considered nominating this for an A7 myself but I figure I'll let someone else chime in before being unnecessarily bold :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because it states that it needs to make a credible claim of "significance" not a credible claim of "notability". The threshhold is different; however, I don't believe it is defined anywhere. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I think you're misreading the guideline. A "credible claim of significance or importance" would be precisely the foundation on which notability would rest, and that is what CSD A7 looks for. Things like: "He was voted Best Teacher in Houston by a jury of his peers" would be a credible claim of significance/importance, and would represent a foundation for establishing notability. Absent any such credible claim, CSD A7 applies. This article does not have any such claim. Its claims of significance are blatantly incredible. Either way, this will obviously be deleted, I'm just trying to save us 7 days, hehehe. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point; however, the guidelines specifically say

This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.

AND

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines

Although, it does say

The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible.

This confuses me now as to the difference between a credible and uncredible claim of significance. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I believe the article can be speedy deleted as a more than obvious Hoax due to the addition of "Good led a race riot with his black side kick Martin Luther King Jr. and killed 394 orphans in the conflict. He went to jail for 13 years and came out with several tattoos and the nick name "King Cobra"." Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Well, credit them for creativity. Would you like the honors? :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per R3 by Rmhermen (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Chuckawalla" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I produced this page while creating a DAB page. Misread instructions, so this page with the "quotemarks" is not needed S. Rich (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 13. Snotbot  t • c »  18:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I moved the title before seeing that it was proposed for deletion. This proposal can be closed since I resolved the title issue and csd'ed the title with quotes.    Thorncrag  18:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as most of the "keep" arguments actually acknowledge the lack of sourcing available. Maybe someday we'll have enough reliable source material to justify an article on this, but no one has demonstrated that we do at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Dubstep ballet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is completely unsourced, not notable, and is full of original research. Google search yields many hits; however, none seem to be from reliable sources. Most come from Youtube or tumbler. Google news search yields little. Google scholar has nothing relevant. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced, and Google results reveal minimal non-reliable coverage and maximal articles with the words "dubstep" and "ballet," those articles themselves having nothing apparent to do with the topic of this article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources indicating notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article would be an interesting article, if it was scourced. --TheRico152 (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is not quite WP:NEO and it is not quite WP:TOOSOON, but it all feels like something recently made up that may not exist shortly. (I'll accuse myself of WP:IDONTLIKEIT before someone else does... --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete I enjoy this article, find it to be relevant, and in fact have had the privilege of seeing the movement -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.105.116 (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong. Dubstep-Ballet is an upcoming movement that is well reckonised within both music and dance circles both in the UK and Sweden!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.234.254 (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC) — 212.20.234.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • So we will recreate this article (with reliable sources indicating notability) Bulwersator (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE, This is a legitimate entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.160.8.25 (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Do Not Delete** We are about to write an article about it in Toxin Magazine. It is an upcoming movement and has began to really gain some speed. http://www.toxinmagazine.co.uk It has earnt its place amoungst other art forms.

Will Poole- Editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.17.99 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC) — 109.155.17.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is an excellent article about an upcoming social movement - do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.78.170 (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — 77.101.78.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Do not delete, whilst it is true that there are not the usual number of internet sources, or indeed 'convenetional' sources for this particular VSM it is nonetheless undoubtedly existent. It would be a shame for Wikipedia to err on the side of "this is not unequivocal online, so deletion advised" when the very philosophy of the dubstep ballet movement is that things exist in spaces 'out there' beyond the internet. I think the entry is valid, and I would argue that the referneces are valid and notable - why this claim Ryan Vesey? 194.82.210.247 (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC) L. Brown BA MSc[reply]

• Do not delete Qual a razão de se querer deletar esse artigo? Se trata de um artigo único, sobre um assunto único e inovador. O fato de que existem poucas referências e poucas informações a respeito só vem reforçar a originalidade do tema. Eu acho que a grande contribuição desse espaço é justamente essa: dar voz a idéias originais, antes que elas apareçam aos montes em qualquer pesquisa na internet. 189.107.20.86 (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Translation of above): "Why would you want to delete this item? It is a single article on a subject unique and innovative. The fact that there are few references and little information about it only reinforces the originality of the topic. I think the great contribution of this space is precisely this: to give voice to original ideas before they appear in droves in any Internet search."--Coin945 (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete, I was surprised to see a delete notice on this article. It's not drafted to perfection, but it deserves to stay in my opinion. It's wrong to use search engine hits as the gold standard of proof in this debate - can we please remember this is an underground movement! I wonder how many nascent modes of musical expression (jungle, dnb, dubstep itself!) that would have fallen foul of this criterion in the day just because of their youth? I've seen dubstep ballet in 2010 in Aldgate's Rhythm Factory (London), and know of several critical scenes going off in Glasgow and Canterbury. I have no doubt this is one that is going to grow. - M. Malinowski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.78.170 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• DO NOT DELETE I happened across this page after searching Wikipedia for 'Dubstep Ballet' and am upset to find that it may possibly be deleted. I was introduced to Dubstep Ballet in March 2011 and signed up to the email newsletter, which keeps me informed of upcoming workshops in Edinburgh and surrounding areas. Understandably, Dubstep Ballet is not well know nationally, but there is a strong following in Glasgow which has reached Edinburgh - with more and more people spreading the word. Movements need to start somewhere, and to have a Wikipedia page only strengthens Dubstep Ballet's profile and will aid its progression in modern dance culture. Jojosephine2 (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)G.Stride[reply]
• D-d-d-delete I don't want to discount the above arguments from single-purpose accounts for keeping the article, so let's evaluate some of them, and hopefully, this will be an example how not to argue your case in deletion discussions:

I enjoy this article, find it to be relevant, and in fact have had the privilege of seeing the movement

• Articles are not kept on Wikipedia because we like them.

Dubstep-Ballet is an upcoming movement that is well reckonised within both music and dance circles both in the UK and Sweden!!!

• An up-and-coming movement should have been mentioned already in reliable sources. So far, I don't see any. I see lots of of sources that talk about other movements that are said to be related, but that doesn't say anything about dubstep ballet itself.

This is a legitimate entry.

This is an excellent article about an upcoming social movement - do not delete.

• Actually, it's not, if you read the above comments from Ryan, Ginsengbomb, and others. So, these statements are meaningless.

...it is nonetheless undoubtedly existent

• That's great. But even if it is verifiability, there are still issues of whether this is notable. And we can't determine that unless there is coverage of the movement in reliable sources.

The fact that there are few references and little information about it only reinforces the originality of the topic.

...can we please remember this is an underground movement

...the very philosophy of the dubstep ballet movement is that things exist in spaces 'out there' beyond the internet.

• It doesn't especially matter whether the movement is underground, unique, or "beyond the internet". You can call it whatever you'd like. What matters is that there are sources that both verify and support the notability of the movement. They don't need to be online sources. But there are no sources that even mention the movement, and that is problematic for an article here according to our guidelines. Also, existence doesn't mean notability.

I think the great contribution of this space is precisely this: to give voice to original ideas before they appear in droves in any Internet search.

• Actually, Wikipedia often comes up as the first search term for many topics like this one. But more importantly, Wikipedia isn't for promoting a movement and Wikipedia is definitely not the place for original research like the massive speculation on the origins of this movement.

Anyway, sorry folks. Coming in droves like this to a deletion discussion with arguments that reflect your misunderstanding of Wikipedia and its guidelines is never going to help your case. We can afford to wait until reliable source are published and can create this article then. But there really isn't much worth keeping here, so I'd advise against even userifying I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per I Jethrobot. My sentiments exactly, just couldn't find the most concise way to put it.--Coin945 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete The arguments put forward by the delete-happy crew are totally retarded. Surely it isn't Wikipedia's job to circle-jerk media/academic hacks in the narrow definitional spaces they have constructed for 'newsworthiness'. - Paulo Malvigno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.36.228 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attack other editors or make grandiose accusations that editors are in "delete-happy crew". For the record, I don't think notability is limited at all on Wikipedia-- There are several besides the general notability guideline. If you're concerned with what is considered notable on Wikipedia, you'll want to bring those sentiments over to the talk page of WP:GNG or on the numerous notability guidelines for specific topics. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Itzacon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Science fiction convention. The refs in the article seem so fall short of "significant coverage in reliable and independent sources," and some are purely directory listings. Nothing at Google News archive or Google Books. May not satisfy WP:N or WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references in the article that actually cover Itzacon are blatantly unreliable (message board post) or blatantly insignificant/incidental (everything else). Failing the location of additional sources via Google, this clearly does not pass WP:GNG. All that can be confirmed is that it exists. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable, and not sourced. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Reliable coverage exists but I'm not in a position to lay hands on it at the moment. Should this AfD result in a 'delete', I'd appreciate it if the closing admin would userify the article to User:Dravecky/Sandbox/Itzacon so that I may continue to improve this without losing the edit history? Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amphoteric (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable WP:BAND, no significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not seeing anything like significant coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No notability was shown in the first AfD. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non notable albums by Amphoteric:

Desolation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

When Time Folds and Dimensions Meet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PH7 (Amphoteric album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rivers of Understanding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Origin of Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Last Broadcast (live) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mattg82 (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All. Reading through the original AfD, I am not sure how it survived. Seemed like a couple of "well, I like them" comments, and despite failing WP:BAND they were allowed to stay. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All. Hits from WP:RS sources seem to be mostly side mentions in articles on former member MC Lars. They might have had potential in the '90s, but looks like nothing came of it. Songkick has no history of them gigging. Allmusic has never heard of them, much less Billboard.com. Nothing on Youtube, other than a couple of MC Lars videos where they get a side mention in description. Last.fm at least has an entry for them--showing an audience totaling nine listeners, ever [23]. Their music, even used, is not available on amazon.com, itunes, ebay, or gemm.com. If anyone can find substantial, independent coverage from WP:RS sources, happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ian Spoutz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

New page. I'm skipping WP:PROD because there's some ambiguity. What I see is a page that basically plugs an art dealer, and much of the notability assertion is basically credits from places he's dealt with directly. While it's certainly something that he's dealt art to the Smithsonian Institute, I do not feel that this connotes notability - it would be a bit like stating a vintner is notable for selling bottles of wine to Barack Obama. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. Looks like a vanity piece. Weird thing to say, but it also bothers me that he is only 28 - how notable can you really be as an art dealer only a few years out of college? --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. In order to be a notable art dealer, there are two criteria that must be met. First, the grade of the artists [and their work] that are represented. Second, the grade of the clients that are represented. Mr. Spoutz has obviously represented both important artists and clients as well as having a demonstrated track record as a museum curator with important institutions such as the Federal Reserve. In addition, he founded a recognized foundation for the visual arts. Fortunately, in determining the historic relevance of a subject, we do not discriminate by age, rather we judge by experience and credibility. To compare the subject to a purveyor of wine is unfounded. If the dealer who placed the works of art into the permanent collection of the Smithsonian is merely the peddler of a product, then wouldn't the artists themselves also be the creators of a lowly product produced simply for the government or institution's consumption, thus making them of no greater importance? It is a matter of hierarchy within the art world, therefore, it is evident that Mr. Spoutz is a qualifying subject of importance within that field. --Las98 (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, Las98, but is he notable per our own guidelines, and can this be verified with reliable sources? This is the concern that, ultimately, I bring to the table for this discussion. If you can change the article in such a way that I will change my mind - which, mind you, will be per those guidelines - then please, do it. I will happily retract this if you can. Read through all of those articles, and for people in general (especially through the first one), check out WP:BIO. In short, it is not merely the type and level of work that Mr. Spoutz has done that will garner him notability - to be frank, that amounts to nothing if it can't be backed up per our guidelines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Ian Hornak. At first, I found it hard to believe that this wasn't a hoax - but we genuinely do seem to have a 28-year old who has been a noteworthy art dealer for nearly ten years. But what clearly allowed him to start his career so young was being Hornak's executor (and nephew) and, while he has had other noteworthy successes' many of his achievements to date seem to have been selling Hornak's work to major institutions. He could certainly do with a brief mention (which he seems not to have at the moment) in Hornak's article as a proponent of Hornak's work since Hornak's death but, unless someone can come up with some significant reliable sources, I doubt that he deserves his own article - yet. PWilkinson (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Masciangelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable artist, page created by PR agency, see similar/related deletions Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Allan_Jones Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Page_One_Management Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simone_Otis Gaijin42 (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Question: how many f'ing articles do we really need on Make-up artists and hair stylists? It seems like we have more articles on those than nobel prize winning physicists. It is really starting to bother me. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nenoiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable artist, page created by PR agency, see similar/related deletions Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Allan_Jones Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Page_One_Management Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simone_Otis Gaijin42 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Will skip my usual rant about how we have way, way, way too many make-up artists and hair stylists with individual Wiki pages. Ooops, too late. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is not a notable person. Vincelord (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After searching, I can find no reliable sources indicating notability. ManicSpider (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 21:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Schiavinatto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable artist, page created by PR agency, see similar/related deletions Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Allan_Jones Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Page_One_Management Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simone_Otis Gaijin42 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very little coverage in reliable sources, and what's there is brief and incidental. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Patently non-notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No notability. Vincelord (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeina Esmail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable artist, page created by PR agency, see similar/related deletions Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Allan_Jones Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Page_One_Management Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simone_Otis Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Patently non-notable quasi-spam. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Vincelord (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 21:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable artist, page created by PR agency, see similar/related deletions Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Allan_Jones Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Page_One_Management Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simone_Otis Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Patently non-notable quasi-spam. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 21:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Carreiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable artist, page created by PR agency, see similar/related deletions Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Allan_Jones Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Page_One_Management Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simone_Otis Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Patently non-notable quasi-spam. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Apart from some infomercial-esque makeup tips in the National Post and her line about women being lemmings I can't find any sources for her. Non-notable. ManicSpider (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye, Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable album, released on artist's own label. artist is borderline not qualifying for WP:BAND. Album definately fails WP:NALBUM Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nomination withdrawn. WP:BEFORE failure on my part. has a couple in depth reviews to meet GNG Gaijin42 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that sources support the notability of the album. (Note: Info like artwork and track listings do not constitute notability for albums. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hits and More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

unreleased album, no indication of notablitiy, fails WP:NALBUM Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - per an admin, the previously linked AFD is for a different album of the same name. You can see the comment hereGaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the article should not be deleted as the album will be becoming more notable as the release next month nears. (Note: I have cleaned-up and added to the article to try and improve it) —Dell9300 (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sourced release date, track listing, cover art. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 18:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • How does having date, track list, and art satisfy WP:NALBUM ? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of third party coverage here, here, here, here and here. Eric444 (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of good sources, including the ones above. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; this has plenty of sources to warrant the article's existence. CloversMallRat (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, has track listing, has sufficient sources, has cover artwork, very notable musician, with a release date of less than one month. NYSMtalk page 00:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 21:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Angel Alita (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

2016 crystal ball movie. Massive failure of WP:NFF Gaijin42 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFF as far too premature. This film is already mentioned at in the director's article and for now, THAT is where it might be best covered and sourced in context to his future plans. Under WP:FFCLARIFY this topic speculation does not merit a seperate article... yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Way too to early to split this out on its own. Originally was supposed to come out earlier than 2016, but this was pushed back due to Avatar, so who knows what could happen following a pair of Avatar sequels. The title could also change. Also covered on the Battle Angel Alita article. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 22:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This film is still in pre-production which puts it in violation of WP:NFF. --TheRico152 (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• DO NOT delete, there is no even separate section for the film at James Cameron (V_V) Idot (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is justification for a merge, not a keep. And it _is_ covered in the Battle Angel Alita article, so your argument is really moot imo. 99.111.116.74 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unbelivably WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps the article can be created in a year or 2 when we know more. Hasteur (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Concerns regarding scarcity of sources may be valid, but merger is an editorial decision and it seems a valid target does exist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Of Dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article only states what is in the book, it tells nothing about the book. It is all plot, no sources whatsoever. At present, I consider it bookpromo for Christmas... Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dragonvarld. If possible, make a brief (emphasis on brief) 3-4 sentence synopsis for each book. I don't see where it's necessary to have an article specifically for this book. This might have sold well, but I'm not finding any articles or reviews from notable sites to show that it passes WP:NBOOK. There's tons of fan reviews, but we can't count those... Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Did find a PW review and tried to clean the article up, but I don't think that'd be enough to keep. I'll keep grinding and looking for sources. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or merge to Dragonvarld. In addition to the PW review found by Tokyogirl there's another one by Booklist [24]. Also the G-News archives offer some (admittedly limited) material about this novel. I can imagine a good, informative and reliably sourced article, but I wouldn't oppose merging the information to the main article for the series. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above sources found, but without objection to an editorial merge if that's what a consensus at the relevant talk pages indicates. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It gets reviewed on its own. All three articles have potential to expand. Dream Focus 00:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge. Just not seeing any way that this satisfies the criteria in WP:BOOK. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 21:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Richard Kaczynski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline or biographical notability guideline due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There were only two keep responses in the previous AfD, and they did not address this issue, mistakenly assuming multiple publication makes a person notable. This is not an element in our notability guidelines, however. Yworo (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His respectable but modestly cited publications at Google Scholar do not qualify him under WP:ACADEMIC. Neither does his position as an "adjunct assistant professor", a title which apparently carries no teaching duties and is shared by dozens of other people.[25] His music career is obviously way short of meeting WP:ARTIST. It is almost impossible to search Google News for him because he shares a name with Ted Kaczynski's father; adding various discriminators such as "thelema" or "magic" does not turn up anything of significance, so he fails WP:BIO for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe he qualifies as and the author of Pedurabo, among his other credits. He is a well-known lecturer in Thelemic, Golden Dawn, and Neo-Pagan communities both in America and abroad. I will attempt to update his article if I am given time. Rosencomet (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, if you can cite multiple in-depth reliable independent third-party sources that call him "one of the foremost biographers of Aleister Crowley", that would qualify him as notable. Blurbs on book jackets do not count as independent. The "well-known lecturer" could also add to notability, but not sourced to event announcements on websites of organizations with which he is affiliated or at which he spoke. Again, a reliable, independent third-party biographical source would have to describe him as a "well-known lecturer". You can't simply collect a bunch of event announcements and derive that from them, that would be original research. Yworo (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are going to have a difficult time with this. I can only find two citable reviews of Perdurabo, but they are in fringe publications, Witchvox and Ashé Journal. Not even enough to make the book notable, much less the author. All the "raving praise" seems to consist of publisher-solicited blurbs from other authors and occultists, not published in any independent article or review and therefore cannot be used to support notability, just the usual publicity machine in action. This is pretty typical for this sort of book and doesn't support notability. Yworo (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is it being seriously asserted that all of the periodical articles listed in the article are by this person? They deal with an exceptionally wide range of topics. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, an occultist with a real job. Who'd have thunk it. I think these were all stuck in here to try to make the subject seem more notable, by someone who does not understand how our notability policy works. Subject is not notable as an academic or as a musician. If he is notable, it's as a biographer. Not sure that the material unrelated to his (possible) notability should be listed in such detail. If he should be shown to be notable for his occult writing, it's quite distracting and confusing to see all the academic material for which he is not notable also listed. Yworo (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"in-depth reliable independent third-party sources that call him "one of the foremost biographers of Aleister Crowley", that would qualify him as notable" Fair enough. I've just added the Times Literary Supplement review of Perdurabo which calls it ""the major biography to date"". And you don't get much more respectable than the TLS. As regards the other works listed (which I've just expanded), you appear to misunderstand how biographical articles work. They aren't in there to make the subject "more notable" - they are in there because they are works by the subject, and as such need to be listed in order to make the biographical work a complete overview of the subject. Once notability is established, all works need to be listed. I've also added several citations to show that Dr. Kaczinski lectures widely and thus is held in very high esteem as an authority in his fields - which is important for notability purposes. I'm actually quite shocked that this article has been nominated for deletion *again*. We already had a two year discussion on this subject, which led to a No Consensus verdict then - it appears to me to be a bit of a waste of time to re-nominate it again for deletion. This time would be better spent improving the article rather than attempting to destroy the work already put into it.--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, no, you do not understand. The TLS review is a good one. A second mainstream review like that would make the book notable under WP:BOOK. There are serious problems with most of your other changes.
  1. We never link to publisher or Amazon sales pages. They are not reliable sources and they are commercial links which sell the book.
  2. You clearly copy/pasted from the subject's CV. That's considered a copyright violation on Wikipedia.
  3. We do not cite by example or engage in synthesis. Citing three examples of lectures, cited to pages not independent from the subject because they sponsored the event and have a financial interest in it is not reliable sourcing.
  4. Bibliographies do not have to be complete. We list works only related to the topic for which the subject is notable, with external links to more complete listings. A Wikipedia article should not resemble a resumé or C.V. And the MoS specifies that they use bullet points, not numbering. Have a chat with folks over at WikiProject Biography about it if you disbelieve me.

  Bottom line here? You have not established notability. One more review, and you may establish it for the book and we can create an article on the book. Notability of the author has still not been established. Yworo (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: A list of titles, copypasted or not, hardly qualifies as copyright infringement. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be true, but Wikipedia explcitly prohibits any copy/pasting from the web. See WP:COPYPASTE. One reason is that copy/pasters rarely fix the formatting problems that copy/pasting causes. Yworo (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete (it's a bit difficult in this case to determine according to policy alone; going by gut instinct and personal opinion as an occultist). To me most of the content of the article seems like undue weight. All of this because of what, the book? Really, there's plenty of people who are well-known in their circles, and there's plenty of scholars who write articles on their topic, these things don't make a person remarkable on a more universal scale. The article would benefit from proof of feedback his writings and lectures have received (i.e., has he had any actual impact?). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point exactly with respect to lectures. Lots of people lecture. Heck, I've probably given three talks myself that I could cite the event announcement for. But that doesn't establish that my talk was notable. That requires a third-party independent review of my talk. Yworo (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, notability is NOT the only criteria for the inclusion of a fact in a biographical article. If you were a teacher, or a chemist, or a lecturer, and you were notable because you were a famous science fiction author, these other occupations/professions certainly belong in your bio, though they may need citations to show that they are so; they do not, however, need "reviews" to show that you were a "notable" teacher, chemist, or lecturer, just that you were an ACTUAL one. Rosencomet (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly used the phrase "we do not cite by example", sometimes equating it with "Synthesis", but I cannot find this phrase in that section of "Original Research". Where in the Wikipedia guidelines can it be found, along with a definition of the term?Rosencomet (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See specifically What counts as a reliable source? As far as a know, event announcements and programs do not go through any sort of peer-review or fact-checking process. They print the biographical blurb given to them by the subject without question except perhaps about length. The point here being no unreliable sources may be used in a BLP, ever (See WP:BLPSOURCES). Second, review WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event". Use of primary sources in a BLP is strongly discouraged (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). These two may not use my phrase "citation by example", but when examples are cited rather than written statements from an independent third party, they are almost always to unreliable primary sources, which may sometimes be adequate in certain topics, but never are for living people. Yworo (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much. You have changed the subject. And no wonder; the phrase "cite by example" that you have scolded me about in the name of Reliable Sources doesn't exist there, or anywhere else in Wikipedia. It does not even come up in a Google search; you seem to have made it up. As to the rest of this, I strongly disagree with your assessment: none of the citations offered were "event announcements", and at least in the case of the Starwood program, fact checking DOES take place. And though literature produced by an organization may be a primary source for that organization, a bio about a speaker hosted by them may not be. Which is, again, moot, since all that was asserted was that a lecture took place in a particular year, supporting the fact that this lecturer began lecturing at least as early as that. No claim that this was a notable lecture, and there was no attempt to use the biographical info from this event as a source. Just a simple statement that the lecture did, indeed, occur in 1990. The question now is, why you are presenting this storm of technicalities so inappropriately, when the program of the event is so obviously a perfectly good citation for this narrow, non-subjective fact? And when can we move on, since it couldn't have less to do with a nomination for deletion based on notability? And by the way, if a book is notable, its author is notable. Maybe not as well known, but that's a different thing. Rosencomet (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability is not inherited. Having a notable book certainly helps make the author notable, but does not guarantee it. So far, the book itself has not yet been shown to be notable. There is one good review, but WP:NBOOK requires at least two: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I won't respond to your accusations other than to say I am operating in good faith based on my deep understanding of our sourcing policies and just happen to use my own personal phrasing for some concepts. I've explained what I meant and pointed out the policies that clearly apply here. Again, the places to discuss these matters are on the biography of living people noticeboard and the reliable sources noticeboard. Please stop making long contentious arguments in the deletion discussion. Rather than just arguing with me, you should ask questions on those noticeboards, because that is where the consensus interpretation of policy is formed. I know fairly well what responses you will get about these issues, because I read the noticeboards regularly and used to participate in discussions about just these sorts of matters there. The points I am bringing are neither uninformed opinion or made up. Yworo (talk) 01:23, 8 December 20.11 (UTC)

• Keep. I've seen nothing to change my view, expressed in the first AfD, that Kaczynski is legitimately recognized and noted as a leading Crowley expert. In addition to the TLS review mentioned above, here is an article and interview of Kaczynski from the Norwegian daily Aftenposten which (per Google Translate) notes, "Many biographies are written about Crowley, but connoisseurs of new religious movements believe that "Perdurabo" by American Richard Kaczynski is best." Here he is, quoted just a few days ago in the Colombian magazine Semana. A GBooks search for <Kaczynski Crowley> turns up loads of references and citations by other writers. I don't see how it would help the encyclopedia, or a user who comes here trying to learn about the subject, to delete this article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What subject? The book? Crowley? There's nothing remarkable about the author. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 05:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we are getting much closer. Just so folks know what is being aimed for, it's point 3 of WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." We have one review, the TLS review. We have the remark in Aftenposten, which if the article were actually a in-depth review of the book, we'd be done. All that is needed, in my opinion, is one more good in-depth review or several shorter reviews, though they would need to be in notable independent publications, not in any way associated with Kaczynski or OTO, to be convincing. Yworo (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason that such a review need be in a publication "not in any way associated with... OTO" any more than a review of a book about a Catholic theologian would have to be in a publication in no way associated with the Catholic Church. Kaczynski does not run the OTO. Actually, a publication from the OTO would carry MORE weight if reviewing either Perdurabo or The Weiser Concise Guide to Aleister Crowley. Rosencomet (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Reviews in an OTO publication would not be independent for several reasons beside the fact that Kaczynski is a member. The OTO is small (1200 members according to its article). OTO is also not a religion, so the comparison to the Catholic Church is not apt in two ways. The correct comparison would be to a small company of similar size, whether profit or non-profit. If an employee or affiliate of a company produced a product, we would not count reviews or description of the product by the company to be independent. Plus, OTO is in the business of promoting Crowley, the subject of the book. I'm not saying they shouldn't be listed, but OTO makes money through events at which Kaczynski may lecture, and thus don't count as independent which is required for sources used to establish notability. Seriously, the involvement and conflict of interest here is deep. Yworo (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just about everything you say about the OTO in this section is wrong. It is not a company, nor comparable to it. Crowley is dead, so the OTO is not "promoting" him. The sentence "OTO makes money through events at which Kaczynski may lecture" is absurd, and the notion that a review of Kaczynski's book would therefor be unacceptable is ludicrous. This whole assessment is wrong-headed and misinformed. Rosencomet (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it a non-profit corporation, registered in California and with Federal non-profit status. And it charges its members for attendance at National Events, to pay for the venue and perhaps some of the speakers. Our conflict of interest policy is clear that being non-profit does is not an exception to conflict of interest. Yworo (talk)

The OTO is a religious organization, and like virtually every other religious organization including the Catholic Church, temples, synagogues, mosques, and all sorts of organizations with and without buildings has obtained 501c3 tax status; The OTO is no more a "company" than they are. Churches and synagogues often charge for memberships; some charge for seats at holiday services (mine does), and many other activities like plays, dinners, etc. Many pay speakers and musicians; priests, rabbis and other personnel are often paid employees. Many sell religious products as well. None of this means that membership in a religious tradition or organization makes a review in a publication associated with that tradition or organization a conflict of interest, although if the subject was on the staff of the publication, that would be different. A book written by an OTO member is not comparable to a product produced by an employee. A favorable review by a respected OTO publication of a book about Crowley would be exactly the source to cite; that's where the experts would be. What would be important would be the history of the publication and its approach to its reviews; of course, if it was merely a sales catalog and the book was available through it, or if it was an instrument of a small press which published the book, that would be a conflict of interest. But Kaczynsky's books have been published by Weiser, New Falcon Press, North Atlantic Books, etc, not OTO small presses (if there are such).

BTW, the OTO is an international organization; the figure you offered concerning membership is only for the United States Grand Lodge in 2008. OTO has existed for over 100 years, and did not originate in the U.S.Rosencomet (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: I haven't had a chance to review the most recent sources added, but this article is very close to satisfying notability requirements. If it looks like a "delete" to you, I'd suggest it be relisted to give a bit more time for improvement. Yworo (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arxiloxos and Rodneyorpheus that there was really no reason to revive this old nomination for deletion, but now that it was done, the additions that have been made have updated and fleshed out the article. I have a couple other items to put in, but their official release date is 2012, so I will wait until they are published. I intend to keep improving the article as time goes on, and I believe other editors will as well. I think this one should be given a Keep and allowed to be worked on. Rosencomet (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. I agree with the various arguments presented above for a delete. As for the book Perdurabo, it is currently in less than 100 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. I am not sure this is a ringing endorsement of notability. If a subject is an expert in a very narrow topic, the combination of the subject’s notability and the topic’s notability should add up to a level that would justify an article on WP, which I don’t think is quite the case here. Perhaps a note in the Aleister Crowley article, under a section titled something like “Biographers”, would be more appropriate.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. It is always tough for guys in, ahem, less academically respected fields. However, my view tends to be that even if the world thinks they are a quack, if they are a leading quack in their field, then I guess they deserve their article under WP:ACADEMIC. I won't cry though if it gets deleted. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's not quite the leading quack in this field, IMO. I really don't think this is up for deletion because us Wikipedians think all occultists are un-mentionworthy (I don't!!), it's because this specific author doesn't meet the notability requirements, regardless of the field. Most of his article has nothing to do with what some say he's notable for, the book. The article itself has no encyclopedic value (IMHO). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A biographical article should not be limited to "what some say he's notable for". If a subject is notable, and I believe this one is, the article should be a short biography, including items relevant to the subject, not just his best-known feature. Biographies throughout Wikipedia reflect this; they include birth date and location, marital status & offspring, education and employment, and all sorts of facts about the subject regardless of whether they impact on his most famous attribute. I don't think examples should be necessary for such a simple fact, but hundreds if not thousands are available. And though Perdurabo is his best known book, it is hardly his only written work.Rosencomet (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, of course; I meant it's unlikely his biography would be of interest to anyone (but a select few people), even those who are interested in his book. Repeating what I said above: The article would benefit from proof of feedback his writings and lectures have received (i.e., has he had any actual impact?). It'd also benefit from some general descriptions of his work or his views, or anything like that. (I'm not suggesting that the article is incomplete and needs improvement, I'm suggesting it's unlikely we'll find third-party sources that give sufficient feedback on his work. And that's what we'd actually need to establish notability.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is taken, but since this discussion started we've already found several valuable third-party sources, despite several protestations beforehand that they didn't exist. My point all along has been that instead of spending time and energy yelling for deletion, effort is much better spent in improving the article by going out and finding good sources. We don't improve Wikipedia by reducing the amount of information in it, we improve it by creating better articles. And this one is considerably better now than it was just a couple of weeks ago, thanks to the efforts of all involved. However I'm starting to feel like we're trying to aim at a moving target - each time an editor has asked for a new source or a revision of some part of the article, once that's been supplied then suddenly it appears that that isn't sufficient after all and the article now needs something else. While I applaud the effort to continually upgrade an article's quality, I have to ask, can we get a very clear specific listing of what this article still needs in order to satisfy everyone, with valid justification quoting specific WP policies, so we can all see exactly what is currently lacking and work to tackle those specific requirements. I think that would help considerably in us achieving a good consensus on this.--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered I don't have the article on my watchlist; wasn't aware of the changes. (Though in any case, if it's my opinion that the article should be deleted then I'm not going to take that kind of time that you suggested that I should take to improve the article, that's nonsensical. I have more important articles to do research for.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on basis of review in Times Literary Supplement: as notable as it gets. He gets an h-index of 15 for his dentistry, which is close to a pass of WP:Prof#1 on that alone. Wikipedia should be proud to have an article on an occult dentist. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC),[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 21:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Radley (surgeon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable biography of a consultant at a hospital [26]. Also there is a conflict of interest. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as he is clearly published multiple times, but clear all original research and fluffy material from article. COI (autobiography) aside, he seems to cleanly pass WP:GNG. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Typical CV for a succesful surgeon. This article does not explain why he should have an article more than the several hundred British surgeons who have a similar career. I have a number of publications to my name. Does that make me notable? No. Doesn't pass WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 20:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He is a surgeon, and is only distinguished by the fact that he has published slightly more articles than might be the norm for a surgeon. But there is no claim of notability in his field, and if one was to assess him as an academic he gets nowhere near the requirements for WP:ACADEMIC. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Most of his publications have multiple authors and are not heavily cited. The article has dozens of references but they are almost all simply links to articles he has published - in other words they are neither independent nor are they about him, so they do not contribute to WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP on an apparently non-notable "theatre maker". Has 5 references (no in-line citations) 3 of which are dead-links, and none of which purport to be WP:RSes. Too old to BLP-PROD, so here we are. No RSes found after reasonable searching. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Would have to agree with nom. Tried searching adding "theatre" to the term as well, and there just isn't sources to demonstrate notability. Sources provided in article are mainly dead, or at best, highly unreliable. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ^talk 14:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Paul (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability. In fact I considered a speedy deletion (A7), but found there had been a previous AfD. Two of the "keeps" in that AfD came from what turned out to be sockpuppets, and in addition, the arguments given there for keeping were not good. For example "I've seen this guy a lot on tv", and "Probably noteworthy, but needs substantial revision and verification" (but without any such verification being offered). At present there is only one reference in the article, and that one merely has a two sentence quote from Paul. No evidence at all of satisfying any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and I'd suggest speedy delete. Article basically just says that he's a public relations consultant and that he founded a non-notable public relations firm. I don't see that making a claim of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it qualifies for a speedy deletion too, and my only reason for not pursuing that path was the existence of a previous AfD. However, I really don't think that AfD did a good job of establishing a meaningful consensus to keep. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Older versions contained a lot of unsourced resume material and advertising. [27] Since most of this stuff seems to be unsourceable, it was removed in the interim. What's left is definitelu in A7 territory. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand this Sports Illustrated story may be significant coverage about this fellow's involvement in a number of sports scandals. I'm not convinced this gives him the long term significance needed to be an encyclopedia subject, but there it is. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and it may be a candidate for speedy as well (3 for 3 here...) No claim of actual notability, one passing mention in an article isn't the same as 'significant coverage'. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, definitely A7 territory. Bazj (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I hate sock-puppets. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ^talk 14:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I believe this article is a hoax. There is no substantiation for its existence: Zero Google hits other than this article, and, of the four external links listed, three are invalid and the fourth is the IMDb page for a different South Korean sports-themed film, Forever the Moment. ShelfSkewed Talk 15:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete Not sure if it is a hoax, but it can't be verified to even exist, no less be notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete': Possible hoax. Unverifiable. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. Mice never shop (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was discussion closed, moot / housekeeping. Article was deleted by User:NawlinWiki. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art of Hopeless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Declined CSD, contested PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC and general notability guidelines. No coverage from reliable third party sources. Cntras (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Some of the phrasing in the article is pretty obviously written in order to promote the article, such as "with the purpose to create musical pieces that remembered a deep artistic sense comes from desolation" and especially "both musicians noticed a special synergy that led them to join forces in pursuit of creating compelling compositions". That there's no reliable sources pretty much confirms that this is a non-notable band. As far as the "award" goes, it should be noted that they received it from "Hellsnoise Radio", which is a user-generated online radio station and blogspot blog. While the blog does seem to have a decent number of followers, it's not a notable blog by any means. The award is not enough to show that they've achieved notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G11. I have tagged it accordingly. The previous speedy was declined on the grounds that it does not qualify under A7, but I believe it's blatant promotion per Tokyogirl79's reasoning. I haven't taken a look to assess whether this band meets notability criteria, but if it does this article would definitely need TNT. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete is right, I think. A filtered google for AoH without blogs, etc, gave just 41 results, none of them 'reliable, independent' sources usable for Notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion outweigh the arguments for retention here. –MuZemike 21:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xero Sample Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no idea what a "sample tape" is, but if it's along the lines of a demo, then I don't think it is notable enough for its own article. It doesn't appear to belong in Linkin Park's discography either (early version of the band). Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:ALBUM. - eo (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If a demo song is not notable enough to have its own article, the best thing I would do is merge the information to Linkin Park. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• deleteFails WP:ALBUM delete/merge, unreleased mixtape, no news coverage. notability is not inherited. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (for now) – The article was created yesterday and was tagged for deletion within 30 minutes. Give it a chance. Linkin Park is notable, and I think their early music is too. The author, Bnhafwents97, still seems to be updating the article and has not even been notified of this nomination. —danhash (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NALBUMS, section "Unreleased material".—Kww(talk) 20:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG as I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources for this subject.  Gongshow ^Talk 10:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An article like this could be easy saved and even be a decent article like RATM demo. There are several books about LP (here and here) that probably dedicate some text to this demo. Is just a matter of finding some preview online of the first chapter or so. I don't have the time to search right now, but finding RS about the demo of a notable band is just a matter of time.--Neo139 (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NALBUMS "Unreleased material" clause, only one reference (to annother Wiki). Remember to unlink in ((Linkin Park)) to quash a bunch of redlinks that will show up because of the deletion. Hasteur (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IStillPsycho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, and no references for verification. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 12:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, as I can only find a single twitter feed and a couple of bloggish references, with no significant coverage or reliable sources mentioning it. Clearly is crystalballing, and original research. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think we get as far as the crystal ball - a sequel to a seemingly insufficiently notable original isn't likely to make the grade now or ever. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]