< 30 December	1 January >

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. A merge discussion can take place on the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal consolidation

[edit]

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

Nominating my own page Tinton5 (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isn't your page any more. You need to include a valid reason for deletion. Greglocock (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The only person who made a substantial edit was the author. In my opinion it classifies under WP:G7. The only other edits were adding a tag and adding the word "e.g." Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 00:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is obsolete. Toddst1 (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I think there should be an article on this topic, and I'm more than willing to help expand it. It's certainly been a notable idea here in Canada for decades - there's actually a well-sourced entry on the amalgamation of Toronto here already - but I don't think the idea has been limited to the Great White North (and even if it is, that doesn't mean it's not notable). I found lots of useable, reliable sources for "municipal consolidation" and "municipal amalgamation" in quick Google and GScholar searches. At any rate, please consider not speedying it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple states have passed legislation about this. WP:CSD#G7 no longer applies as others have contributed. Toddst1 (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is an important concept that deserved an article long ago; I respect your right to ask for your own recent contributions to be deleted, but we can't delete pages with multiple major contributors unless all of them request deletion. In this case, we have a significant topic that's worthy of an article; I see no reason to delete. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable topic backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Toronto, right off the top of my head I can name at least a dozen other Canadian cities that have gone through amalgamation processes as well, and there are a good many more than that — in Ontario alone, the number of municipalities has gone, almost entirely through amalgamations, from 815 in 1996 to 444 today. And we already have separate articles on Municipal reorganization in Quebec and Municipal amalgamations in New Brunswick, as well. And that's just in one country, whereas these have happened in many other countries as well (e.g. Súdwest-Fryslân in the Netherlands, which I learned about precisely by creating municipal amalgamation as a redirect to this article) — so, needless to say, the opportunities for expansion here are enormous. That said, we already have an article at Merger (politics), which covers more or less the same ground, although it's not much more than a very incomplete list of municipal mergers either. These two articles should probably be merged (irony duly noted!), although I don't presume to know which should be the primary title and which should be the redirect. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had noticed the Merger (politics) article and agree that the contents should be merged, but I think the name is terrible. "Merger (politics)" doesn't necessarily tell the reader that the article is going to be about the amalgamation or consolidation of two or more cities/counties/countries, etc. It sounds like it could be about mergers of political parties. Anyhow, I guess I'm just saying that, in my opinion andyway, any merged content should be at Municipal consolidation, not Merger (politics). Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McGinty

[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Sean McGinty has never played a first-team match for a professional club, which is a requirement for a footballer who does not otherwise pass the general notability guidelines. – Pee Jay 22:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 22:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning he fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Never played in a fully professional league match. Fails WP:NFOOTY. LeedsHK16 (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This looks like a snowball delete. – Pee Jay 15:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 18:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. - HonorTheKing (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Patty Loveless (album). (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Ways (Patty Loveless song)

[edit]

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

Unsourced stubs with no hope of expansion. Songs only charted for a handful of weeks and peaked outside the top 40 of the country chart, fail WP:NSONGS. Eric444 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all and protect. We went through this before; see Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song). The creator of these articles is vicious about WP:OWN and will bluntly revert any attempts at redirection. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a #redirect does not constitute an RFD. If the song is to be deleted, this editor needs to follow established procedures and submit an RFD, with full and substantial justification for the deletion. Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all None of these articles will ever be expanded and just aren't notable. Like above, it's same thing before. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect the lot of them. Unreferenced permastubs of unnotable songs. Redirect to parent articles, protect the redirects, and then we can all get on with our lives. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all; don't see these getting expanded anytime soon. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 21:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Public Nuisance Train Man -Target of Legend-

[edit]

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

Searching under the English name brought up zero sources. Searching under the Japanese name only brought up Wikipedia reprints. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party coverage to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I located the official webpage of the game (published by its developer) at [1] (warning, contains nudity). The characters from the title of the article are recognizable in the image, below the English words "MOLESTER TRAININGMAN - GAIDEN". This is not an independent source but it's something. Dcoetzee 13:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually for the same game, though. The title is "伝説へのチェイサー", so it's presumably another title in the series. A link to the official website for the game described in this article is already provided in the "External links" section. --DAJF (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I found this, which seems it might be an independent review, given that it is somewhat critical of the game. I don't know anything about the site, however. Michitaro (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Google Translate of the About page. I don't think that it is reliable because the staff use usernames, but I could be wrong about that. Also, before people view this - there is nudity in banner ads. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In addition to GNG issues, there's a copyvio issue in an article consisting entirely of detailed plot summary (ref Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works). Merged intro into List of As the World Turns characters. Dcoetzee 13:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Dante

[edit]

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

This article's topic does not meet WP:GNG. No sources independent primarily of the subject and of relations to As the World Turns have been found, news articles and books alike. No other reliable sources or significant coverages of this character have been found. Also, it lacks real-world context and consists of only plots, which is against WP:PLOT. The fact that this character appeared between Nov 2009 and Feb 2010 makes him either a recurred character or a short-lived lead character. Articles that mentioned its portrayer lacks substantial information about this fictional character. Previous, it was PRODded. George Ho (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with similar articles, into List of As the World Turns characters. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Almost forgot, is this topic worth merging to that list page? Many characters do not have their own abstracted backgrounds; this topic consists of only one actor in that list. How is it worth merging? --George Ho (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; a single (reliable?) source does not an article make. Fails the general notability guideline IAW WP:DEL#REASON. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 06:27, 28 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, BusterD (talk) 20:30, 31 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sulfuro Bhangarh Manuscripts

[edit]

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

Self-published book on Lulu.com with no assertion of notability per Wikipedia:NBOOK, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Filing Flunky (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:25, 16 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Yunshui. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:06, 30 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, BusterD (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think wp would be any better if this article were to be deleted, so keep. Plenty of hits. Give it time. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, plenty of hits from Amazon, Smashwords and Lulu - all self-publishing Meccas. No hits whatsoever from mainstream press reviews, other books, trade press or journals, or any other reliable sources. Yunshui 雲‍水 00:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. No indication of any critical reviews in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kumbia Kings. Dcoetzee 13:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse fonseca

[edit]

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

This was tagged as csd-a7, but a check of the article suggests by proxy the person being covered may be notable as part of the group Kumbia Kings. In light of this, I'm placing the article here to see if others think the article should be axed. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the article Kumbia Kings, there's only a trivial mention of him in a list of former members, though he stayed with the band for 5 years. At best, it warrants a redirect. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our notability guideline for musicians states quite strongly that individual musicians are entitled to their own separate articles if you can properly demonstrate notability in reliable sources for activity outside of the band (solo releases, etc.); in the absence of that, they're entitled only to be redirected to their band and not to have their own standalone articles. If his solo work can be properly referenced as notable (I suspect not, considering that none of his other "bands" have articles, but you never know), then keep; if it can't, then redirect to Kumbia Kings. Bearcat (talk) 09:03, 21 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 23 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, BusterD (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I can find no sources to establish him as a notable artist independent of Kumbia Kings. -- Whpq (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2003 Cricket World Cup#Pool A. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Cricket World Cup Group A

[edit]

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

Stub, no such subpages for the 2003 Cricket World Cup, not even Group B — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umar1996 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:45, 27 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, BusterD (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2003 Cricket World Cup, which has all the results. St Anselm (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Velocity

[edit]

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

A advert for Brand Velocity made with original research combined with false and misleading references. Article was created by people (with SPAs) from Brand Velocity as one of multiple spammy articles around their company. Article contains many references but many are primary sources, articles written by the CEO Bergstrand (eg 7, 8, 15, 16, 17 and probably 18). Others do not verify the statement they follow (eg 2 (2nd time), 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17 and probably 18). A blatant example of the misrepresentation is the claim that a book they published was reviewed in CIO magazine is supported by two articles by the author of the book, Bergstrand, that are not reviews of the book and merely mention in the byline of one that Bergstrand wrote the book. The third reference that supports the claim is to a CIO magazine "What We're Reading," article, other "What We're Reading," articles found on the magazines websit do not contain reviews of the books they mention. Article lacks independent coverage of Brand Velocity and due to this and the spammy and misleading nature of the article it should be deleted. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinvent Your Enterprise (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Bergstrand Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge work productivity Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Profiling). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per nomination. I did find one interview with the founder in a teliable source[2], but I am less sure that this tells us about anything that's had a significant effect on history, technology, or culture; the source is from the Drucker Institute, relating to the management theories of Peter F. Drucker. This business has some kind of relation with Drucker's institute, and so the source is at minimum a very friendly one. Prior versions of this were even more deceptive and nonsensical than the current text. I took an axe to it; that version qualified for speedy deletion IMO. We just can't reward this kind of editing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:20, 24 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, BusterD (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much every reference is self-referential, including all the references to CIO Magazine which are actually to articles written by the company's CEO. I found just one apparently independent reference at Business Week, but the author of that article discloses his bias (the author is the CEO of the Drucker Institute, which receives funding from Brand Velocity). All in all this sounds like a cozy little walled garden of mutual promotion; nothing notable here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Nash

[edit]

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

to short. Biography with no references or external links Dietcoke3.14 (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete notability not established nor asserted. Eeekster (talk) 20:22, 31 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 procedural close. Article is now a redirect. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safir Helipolitan Hotel

[edit]

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

Zero refs. Lacks substantial rs coverage. Tagged as an orphan for nearly 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable hotel chain plenty of hits in google books, Kuwaiti owned company. Merged into article about the company.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AFD refers specifically to the Safir Helipolitan Hotel article, which was an article created with zero refs, tagged as an orphan for nearly 2 years, and which in my opinion lacked requisite substantial RS coverage. I recognize that mid-AFD the article creator has now merged the article into the parent article, and redirected the article, which I certainly have no problem with. I believe, though others should feel free to correct me, that the article creator's above !vote is actually a merge !vote under the circumstances, though he fashions it as a keep !vote, as this afd relates not to the parent article but to the zero-ref Safir Helipolitan Hotel article that has been redirected mid-afd. Happy new year to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close, the already-accomplished merge is the best solution. Neither "keep" not "delete" would result in a better situation, and "merge" or "redirect" are irrelevant because both things have already been done. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Open-pit mining. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open Mine

[edit]

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

Lacks substantial rs coverage. Zero independent refs. Created by an spa. Tagged for notability since August. Epeefleche (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open-pit mining? The self-described "corporate magazine" is non-notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Clarityfiend; I see no coverage to prove that this magazine qualifies for a Wikipedia article, but the title is a likely error for open-pit mine. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to Open-pit mining per Clarityfiend.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Reinisch

[edit]

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

not a particularly notable or important figure in our field. This wouldn't even be the person you think about for what is purported to be the operation they "pioneered" (microtia), who would be Burt Brent Droliver (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reinisch's surgical procedure is mentioned in Microtia and we already have an article on Burt Brent. It seems these surgeons take a different approach to reconstruction of the outer ear. There is no reason why we can't have biographies of both of them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as pioneer of a reconstructive procedure for ear surgery, as cited in footnotes. Article could stand improved sourcing. Carrite (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep things in perspective, as someone who actually does this for a living, no one in our field would immediately thing of John Reinisch (or anyone else for that matter) when using a polyethylene implant for microtia repair. It's just not a particularly notable procedure, and outside Bert Brent no one is really well known for it. Furthermore the 1st attribution of microtia with this I can find in texts is actually to other surgeons, Wellisz T. Reconstruction of the burned external ear using a Medpor porous polyethylene pivoting helix framework. Plast Reconstr Surg. Apr 1993;91(5):811-8.

The take home message is that this is a VERY soft candidate for inclusion in context of notable contemporary surgeons Droliver (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be failing to get the point that we don't make decisions based on the self-declared expertise of an individual editor, which we have no means of checking, but on published sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a physician, so I just go by what the reliable sources say. According to Google Scholar, the most cited articles by both Reinisch and Burt were published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery , the journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Reinisch was the sole author of a 1974 paper that has been cited 199 times. Brent was the sole author of a 1992 article that has been cited 244 times. Reinisch has published many other articles in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery as well as widely cited articles in other reputable medical journals, such as Pediatrics, the American Journal of Pathology, the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, Fetal and Pediatric Pathology, Annals of Plastic Surgery, Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer, and the American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics. His 2009 article in Facial Plastic Surgery, "Ear Reconstruction Using a Porous Polyethylene Framework and Temporoparietal Fascia Flap" describes the results of his team's work on 788 ears over an 18 year period. Brent reconstructs the outer ears of microtia patients using cartilage, while Reinisch uses a polyethelene framework. The fact that another physician may have used the polyethelene framework technique earlier on a burn patient is interesting but has nothing directly to do with reconstruction in microtia cases. Droliver seems to think that we should accept his personal opinions about which plastic surgeons are notable and which aren't, because Droliver claims to be a plastic surgeon who knows who's who in the field. Droliver may well be a surgeon, but we have no way of knowing for sure. Personal opinions mean very little in these debates. Droliver's comment about the "context of notable contemporary surgeons" shows a lack of understanding of our notability standards, as it is well-established here that notablity is not temporary. This is not a "contemporary" encyclopedia, and someone notable four decades ago or 400 years ago is still notable. What we can know is what Reinisch has published over the decades in reputable journals, and it is quite a bit over 38 years. That leads me to believe that both John Reinisch and Burt Brent are notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using your logic, any physician who publishes any article ever in peer-reviewed literature meets a de-facto standard of notability. That's what Pub-Med and Medline are for. For contemporary physicians in particular, wikipedia inclusion should be limited to those who are truly notable in the field or of historic consequence or it just turns into a google like hodge-podge of biographies. I now defer to the wisdom of the crowdDroliver (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I neither said nor implied that a single journal article would confer notability. Instead, I argued that Reinisch's cited work is comparable to Brent's, even if he is not cited quite as much, and that Reinisch has published dozens of articles (not one) in a variety of very authoritative journals, including many in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. That's my logic in a nutshell. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have improved the references (which were largely self-referential) and removed some of the puffery. His citations at Google Scholar are not terribly impressive (please note that the 1974 article mentioned by Cullen which was cited 199 times appears to have been written by a different J. F. Reinisch). However, he founded the plastic surgery department at Childrens Hospital Los Angeles and chaired the plastic surgery department at USC. He has been cited on national television as a pioneer in the field and has gotten significant coverage in the popular press [3]. I think this adds up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per addition of references to the article by User:MelanieN. This topic is meeting WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McKay McKinnon

[edit]

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

non notable figure in our field Droliver (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since you mention USA Today, I would use this as a ref.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that according to The New York Times he was the subject of a television special--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - another television special.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - and another--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also get the "McKay McKinnon" site:chicagotribune.com search results in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evidence of notability brought forward by TonyTheTiger. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of indication in the footnotes without having to visit Google that this is a plastic surgeon who passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A passing reference in an article (more about the patient and her weird tumor)does not notability make. Please refer to the individuals academic accomplishments, notable contributions, etc.... There is a complete absence of accomplishments you'd use to assess professional notability. This is not someone of note in contemporary plastic surgery by any stretch of the imagination.Droliver (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His citations at Google Scholar are not enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC, but the press coverage unearthed by Tony the Tiger is more than enough for WP:BIO. Dr. Oliver, please familiarize yourself with the various criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia, such as WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO. A person may be notable as an individual, based on significant coverage by independent reliable sources (WP:BIO), even if his professional accomplishments do not establish him as a leader in his field (WP:ACADEMIC). --MelanieN (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gets coverage for various activities of his. Dream Focus 15:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. McKay McKinnon is both clearly and obviously notable. CNN, today, covered a Vietnam surgery that he led: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/06/health/vietnam-tumor/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 Fox (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't know how notable he is in the medical field but after all notability is when other reliable sources say your name in print and McKinnon has multiple references now with the latest being the BBC rehashing AFP report on a 198 pound tumour. I have added the BBC link to the article. Fromthehill (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as copyvio. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entrance exams in india

[edit]

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

Contested prod. Original research. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was not written by someone with experience on WP, however the topic is notable and important. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 31 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hal B. Jennings

[edit]

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

Non notable figure. No case made for inclusion. Droliver (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - did you even read the article? If you had you would have seen the following: "Surgeon General, 10 October 1969-30 September 1973". I'd say the Surgeon General of the United States Army is very notable. Also, as a three-star general, he meets WP:SOLDIER to boot. The article desperatly needs work - it appears to have been cut-and-pasted from a PD source - but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and trout. I was going to skip this one but I thought the challenge of Dr. Griffin (below) was so poorly considered that I dropped in since it was from the same nominator. This guy was the SURGEON GENERAL from 1969 to 1973. I'll be checking any and all challenges by this nominator, it goes without saying. A challenge which was utterly incompetent, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Surgeon General of the Army, to be precise - but still, trout are called for here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya got me there, but Surgeon General of the United States Army is still an instakeep, I think we all can agree. Carrite (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep; clearly passes WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is clearly notable. Vincelord (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - You do realize that Surgeon General of the Army is NOT the Surgeon General everyone knows about (eg. C. Edward Koop). It's a relatively obscure and anonymous position in the culture. I do not see which if the WP:SOLDIER criteria it meets. Just saying.Droliver (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, we absolutely realise that. The Surgeon General of the Army is the highest ranked medical officer in the army - it's equivilant to commanding an Army (unit) in the Army (military force). And WP:SOLDIER #3 (at least) is in play - Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents. General officer = stars on the shoulders, and Jennings had three of a (usually) possible four stars. There is zero question of notability here - the notability is so well established, it's gone plaid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the major newspaper articles mention him are hidden behind paywalls. [4] But this is a notable position, and his activities would be covered. Dream Focus 15:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Surgeon General of the Army is an important position, and this article is well documented and detailed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good God, the man was a lieutenant-general and held a senior appointment in the US Army. Of course he's notable. Ludicrous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony C. Griffin

[edit]

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

non notable figure in our field Droliver (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The New York Times piece showing in the footnotes gets this one 80% over the notability bar. THIS PIECE from Black Enterprise is good enough for the other 20%... With over 16K hits for a google search of his exact name + plastic surgery, it's pretty clear that this as-seen-on-TV Beverly Hills plastic surgeon passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I actually get over 102K Google hits on MY name due to cross links from all over (including a NYT mention a few years ago)and a blog I write. It doesn't make me notable as a plastic surgeon either. This is fame a mile wide and a millimeter deep. In context, this doctor is not a notable figure by any stretch of the imagination in our field by academic standing, publications, noteriety, etc.... Just keeping it real. Droliver (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He certainly doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC; his publications are nil, and his practice appears to be a run-of-the-mill private practice. His appearances on TV don't add much to his notability. However, being featured in the lead of the NYT article, together with the substantial article at Black Enterprise, may be enough to meet the requirement for "substantial coverage by multiple independent sources". He also gets quoted in the NYT here and the Philadelphia Inquirer here. I'm thinking he makes it - for general notability rather than professional standing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central Texas Museum of Automotive History

[edit]

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

Unremarkable private museum. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Google News Search brings up a single hit on volunteerism. Google search brings up only directory entries and primary sources. Dick's Classic Garage article was unmerged and prod on this article was contested. RadioFan (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete begrudgingly. I badly wanted to save this article because it sounds cool and I have a soft spot for museums, but there really isn't anything of substance on the museum. A few passing mentions in several issues of Texas Monthly but they're barely even one-line mentions and I question whether that's even a source that establishes notability. So a fun personal collection but apparently not that notable. StarM 01:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Merge per discussion below. StarM 02:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known in Europe for its Tucker torpedo, the only one which is in unused condition. Covered in the late eighties in Rétroviseur and Car Classic, plus recently on French television (M6). Hektor (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those could help but without citations, it's difficult to determine how these sources might help this article meet notability guideliens. Are they brief mentions as StarM has noted in Texas Monthly, or is it significant coverage where this museum is the subject of the article? Also citations help the article meet verifiability requirements. Can you provide more details on these?--RadioFan (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Click on the Google News link for this AfD, and note how this topic receives significant coverage in reliable sources. Should I list them all here? Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Austin Statesmen article on daytrips to the museum and San Marcos one on the opening seem sufficent to meet WP:RS and WP:V but only for an article covering the museum as a whole. I'd be willing to withdraw this AFD if we can come to concensus of a merge of Dick's Classic Garage to Central Texas Museum of Automotive History--RadioFan (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless I misread, the Dick's content is in the article already. Maybe a redirect? StarM 19:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' it was merged, then unmerged but it looks like NA1k remerged it. If we can get another opinion or two perhaps we can close this as a merge to the main article and be done with it. It would be nice to see some of the references mentioned by editors in this AFD incorporated into the article soon though. We dont want this to get closed out as a merge and then forgotten because the article was "saved".--RadioFan (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, support merge/redirect of Dick's Classic Garage to this article, and keeping this article - I find the notion of a merge acceptable, and I've performed the merging of all information from the Dick's Classic Garage article to the Central Texas Museum of Automotive History article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Did I really say "keep" last time? Sorry, finger slipped. L Faraone 22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Clone

[edit]

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

Contested prod. Book of unasserted notability, by an author, Steven L. Kent, whose own notability is questionable at best. While I appreciate the fact the author, a new editor, inserted the ((Multiple issues)) template in his own article, one has to evaluate whether we even want an article on this topic. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to do things the right way. What do I have to do to keep this article? The author of the Clone series has written over 10 published books, being 7 of them in this particular setting. Why would Wikipedia not want all the books to have their own article? I've seen articles about movies that never even saw the light of day. I've seen articles about subjects that are fairly speculative. Why censure an article about an existing book? I will search for numbers to show the validity of my argument. Thank you.Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliberti (talk • contribs) 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Basically, just because a book exists doesn't mean it meets our inclusion guidelines. Specifically that means that, regardless of who wrote the book and what else that author might have written, the book must at the very least either:

have been the subject The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment. of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
have won a major literary award.
have been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
be the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
have been written by an author so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.

Note that, in most cases, conditions 2, 3, and 4 imply that condition 1 was also met, so let's look at conditions 1 and 5. Steven L. Kent is nowhere near historically significant. He's no household name like John Grisham. That leaves condition 1. Has the book been reviewed by a major literary critic? Has it been reviewed in the literature section of the New York Times or another major newspaper or literary magazine?

If not, then right now is not the right time for Wikipedia to have an article on this book. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "Why would Wikipedia not want all the books to have their own article?" Actually, we want none of the books to have "their own article". We want encyclopedic coverage of the books that meet our inclusion guidelines, which implies that Wikipedia articles are about the books, not for them. Also, please note that Wikipedia's nature is such that some stuff will fall through the cracks, but your argument above is like saying "there are cracks in the system, so we have to widen them so that more stuff (usually implying "my" stuff) will get through." So the fact you're mentioning what else is on Wikipedia will quite simply not be taken in consideration here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what should I do now? Can I have a couple of weeks to talk to the author and find out about selling numbers and if this particular book has any relevant critical reviews? Or do you want me to just delete the article and try to improve the previous article about the first book into a piece that includes about all the books?

And it wasn't my intention to include "my stuff" through the "cracks" in Wikipedia. Usually Wikipedia is my go to source for any sort of information about entertainment pieces like books, video games and movies. When a friend of mine asked me to explain this series of books that I was reading I told him to go to Wikipedia. The thing is, there was no article about that particular book, and the article about the series only talks about the first book.

Anyhow, thank you for taking the time and explaining all of that.

--Frankie (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing the discussions on the The Clone Republic article and found a few arguments that would help this discussion.

User Dream Focus said:

"It is notable because it was reviewed favorably on many established media outlets. I read that it was on the bestseller's list at Barnes and Noble, but I'm having trouble navigating their website and finding that list. Anyway, being reviewed makes it notable enough for the rules. Does anyone know its exact sales figures though?

I'd like to point out that the plot summary isn't any longer than the one for the book I am Legend, or other novels out there, so no reason for people to complain about that."

Following this statement I also read on the top of the discussion page in a Wikipedia information box that "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia", which contradicts what you said about Wikipedia wanting none of the books to have "their own article" and being mostly an encyclopedic coverage of the books that meet the inclusion guidelines.

You obviously know more then me so I'm more "asking you" then "telling you" these things. But as an encyclopedia, wouldn't it be good to have a detailed database of published books? I agree with you about the articles being about the books and not for them, so help me adapt this article to these standards instead of deleting it. In my opinion it would be interesting to have one small and objective article about every single book of this series, or one detailed one about the whole series.

On the same information box I found this as well: "This article is supported by Science fiction task force (marked as Low-importance)". Can you explain to me how this works?

--Frank (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Frank, you ask: "as an encyclopedia, wouldn't it be good to have a detailed database of published books?" No, it wouldn't, that's not an encyclopedia's job, and Wikipedia has decided on criteria at WP:Notability (books) to decide which books should have articles. JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Center

[edit]

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

Non-notable company, with no sources cited. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tagged article with ((notability)) and ((ref improve)). -- Luke (Talk) 16:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, ahs some crystal in it also. Buggie111 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, unsourced, and what little is there is either in the future or before the company was supposedly created. Already speedied at least once. noq (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Much of the content text is shared with Computacenter (which has the merit of actually being sourced); hence all the claim/timing problems. AllyD (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable concern, will be blocking creator for username vio after this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 31 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. L Faraone 00:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Air Lines Flight 346

[edit]

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

Non notable incident per WP:GNG. Instead of an article, a mention of it in the article for Eastern Air Lines seems appropriate. William 16:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 16:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -William 16:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 16:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - per nom. Fails notability criteria. -- Donald Albury 12:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom states does not meet GNG, but does not specify which portion of GNG. All five criteria are met. PERSISTENCE is also met in that it was still being reported on 20 years after the incident (see here and here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arx Fortis (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legionowo railway station

[edit]

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

Lack notability. Ok, there's an article on a site run by people fascinated with railway what does not make it eligible for notability (my statment is based on a similar problem at a discussion over Rainbow Dash nomination for deletion. And moreover, I'm from Poland, and Legionowo is a small town and there are only several Polish railway station that have an article in Wikipedia and Legionowo railway st. isn't exepctional in any way. It's a common train stop. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Nominators for deletion are not allowed to also !vote. This !vote above isn't valid. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I struck out the invalid delete vote from the nominator for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Railway stations are considered inherently notable as indicated in WP:OUTCOMES. It it not healthy for this project to spend hours, days and weeks fleshing out, analyzing and arguing over the inclusion criteria of the thousands of existing rail stations when editors time could be much better spent editing and improving existing articles and creating new ones of notable topics. Also it greatly reduces bad will amongst editors. --Oakshade (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Railway stations are considered notable in general based on past experience, and fighting over each individual station is hardly productive. This is especially true for stations in non-English-speaking countries, since it's harder for editors to find sources and they aren't always online. Besides, judging by this comment I wonder if the nominator is trying to make a point. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- WE have 1000s of articles on railway stations, and I see no reason why this one should not stay. My only problem comes when there are WP:CRYSTAL issues, but that does not apply here.
Keep. This is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records or a sensationalist tabloid, so there's no need for article subjects to be exceptional. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's kinda funny you mentioned it... Yes, Wikipedia definetely IS an encyclopedia. And Wikipedia IS NOT a catalogue (at least I hope so) where you put every building ever built. If there are railway station, why you don't write articles about bus stops?? Or maybe you do? If it's an encyclopedia, then Legionowo railway station shouldn't be included at all. Why? It's a train station? Nothing exceptional happened there. No explosions, no assassinations, no catastrophes, no terrorist attacks... So why, why, why would you put a miserable train station in Wikipedia? It makes no sense. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism Bulwersator (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations are generally considered to be notable. The fact that most Polish stations don't have articles simply indicates that nobody has written them yet, not that they shouldn't be written. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11, blatant promotion. The text appeared to be copied from the official website (although the official site was down for summmer/holiday break, so that couldn't be confirmed). The tone was clearly aimed to promote the group, and the article was created by a user with a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Undergraduate Science Students (SUSS)

[edit]

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

Student organisation with no indication of WP:notability. noq (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've also begun discussion at COI noticeboard [5]. Article's creator is a WP:SPA, several times removing maintenance templates without addressing the sourcing concerns. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non notable student group. research has turned up nothing that meets WP:ORG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:03, 31 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. Sandstein 19:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Häfele

[edit]

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

Company seems non-notable. Google searches (web, news, etc.) don't show up anything in English and my pidgin German suggests that the coverage that is there is trivial. I CSD'ed this and another editor removed the CSD with the explanation in the edit summary that the article's claim that the subject company has "turnover of more than 815 million Euros" makes it notable. I disagree - high revenue != significant coverage in multiple WP:RS. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the decline to the speedy was with the comment that there was an indication of importance. That is not the same thing as meeting notability. It is a deliberately lower bar than WP:N, and this is the correct forum for deciding the latter. LadyofShalott 05:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I likewise found mostly trivial third party coverage, and additionally some press release type publications. This subject appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. JFHJr (㊟) 06:52, 16 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does not in anyway indicate this company is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep – Per some sources I've found. Perhaps others can be found.

Coyne Prepares to Build Business for Hafele, Ad Week article
Hafele forms furniture hardware engineering unit, Woodworking Network Article
Hafele mulls franchise expansion, Franchise India article
Design for living: the answer to fashion excess (but don't tell my husband), mentions in The Telegraph
Loox lighting for the furniture market, from Building Talk

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More sources found:

Hafele tie-up, The Himalayan Times
3i Infotech signs ORION deal with German brand Hafele, Thaindian News
Häfele offers quality ‘green’ products, Malaya Business Insight
Hafele aims for 20% revenue growth, Bangkok Post
Hafele India: Lighting the way, Hotelier India
Managers go to see factories in supply chain, Saigon-gpdaily.com.vn
Hafele's Minifix production: full speed ahead, CBS Interactive Business Network Resource Library, (Originally published by Wood & Wood Products, Dec, 1995)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to note is that the references provided have mostly trivial coverage, though enough trivial coverage might be enough to prove some level of notability. Another thing is that the company has about a billion subsidiaries and child companies. The article is about the biggest of the subsidiaries, but a lot of the sources that Northamerica1000 has found are about different subsidiaries than the subject of the article. I don't mean to disparage Northamerica1000's work, as these are some good sources he's dug up, but I don't think that they are particularly relevant to this article. One thing that I would support is a rename to Häfele Group where we could have a small section on each subsidiary that we can find RSes for, including all the great ones Northamerica1000 found. As I've just finished working on another article, I'd be happy to work with you on that effort. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I support renaming the article to Häfele Group and the addition of subsections per divisions and branches of Häfele Group. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References found. And any company making that much money, and having thousands of employees, is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 09:41, 28 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 15:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article needs a lot of work, the company is notable. I support renaming the article to the Häfele Group and expanding it to cover all of the company's divisions. As a licensed contractor, I have been familiar with this company's products for nearly 30 years, and they have been extensively covered in construction industry trade publications. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but how is the company notable? The references are great but there is still no clear claim of notability. RadioFan (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There no need for the text of an article to explicitly say that a subject has received such coverage, which is the only meaning I can attribute to the phrase "no clear claim of notability". Phil Bridger (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Air Lines Flight 274

[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG for an independent article. William 15:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 15:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -William 15:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 15:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nom states it nicely. Insufficient notability for this incident to merit an article. Also wasn't the same as the notorious Airbus landing-gear incidents, so no merge-to-a-to-be-written-article needed either. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the notability criteria, even though a co-worker of mine was on that flight. -- Donald Albury 12:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of meeting our notability guidelines, no evidence of lasting effects. 98.64.181.170 (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 00:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NetShade

[edit]

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

WP:NN product. No g-news hits, only primary sources, download hosts, product directory, git, etc.. Failed ((prod)) with sole author's objection. Toddst1 (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced, no indication of notability; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:15, 23 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Per [6], [7], and [8]. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. References above prove existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:12, 30 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 15:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I have added a reference [9]. benzband (talk) 15:16, 31 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Parks Caldwell

[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only possible claim of notability related to being 1 of 7 original members of a fraternity. POV fraternity sources feting his supposed accomplishments do not satisfy WP:N's "requirements of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"--GrapedApe (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC) GrapedApe (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I found scant local coverage, likewise falling short of WP:GNG. I'm open to reconsidering if anyone can provide adequate sources. JFHJr (㊟) 06:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 16 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:58, 23 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 15:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:54, 31 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. A bit of a strange AfD indeed. The strongest arguments come from David Eppstein and Guillaume2303, who offer specific points about whether WP:PROF is met.--Kubigula (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

H. Lee Cheek, Jr.

[edit]

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

Reason Hydrogen Mike (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC) — Hydrogen Mike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While Dr. Cheek's accomplishments are notable, I'm not sure that it warrants a wikipedia entry. There are other academics who are much better known who have no entry. Much of this article is identical to Dr. Cheek's faculty page found here: http://www.drleecheek.com/Biography/biography.htm

Keep. Appears to meet WP:PROF; whether other "more worthy" subjects have articles or not is irrelevant. Yes, there are problems: for example, the article appears to have been largely written by the subject which is discouraged, but these are clean-up issues - not cases for deletion. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Professor; the criticism of the professor is unfair. I know his books, and they are very important in his field. KEEP THE ENTRY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.157.145 (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even the nominator admits he is notable. The fact that more notable people lack articles should cause the nominator to create such articles, not try to delete this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't believe this entry is necessary.Beezler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC). — Beezler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article doesn't present any strong evidence of passing WP:PROF. His many books would give one plausible avenue for notability, but that needs evidence that they've made an impact. His administrative positions are not high enough for WP:PROF#C6. And the election to the Academy of Philosophy and Letters hints at #C3, but it's a new organization founded in 2007 with no secondary sources and it's unclear to me how large and significant it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is clearly a vanity piece. As mentioned by previous users, all of this info is available on Dr. Cheek's personal page. Writing numerous books without knowing their true impact makes this entry very dubious. It does not belong on wikipedia in my view.Hosty36 (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Hosty36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. For many of the reasons already listed above. I most especially echo David Epstein arguments. In addition, I just completed a search of JSTOR. Dr. Cheek's bio seems to indicated that he has had works appear in the Journal of Politics. This is actually quite misleading as he has no published articles in the journal. His book on Calhoun was reviewed by three different journals, including JOP. The JOP review and the Journal of Southern History book reviews were overall negative about the book, while the one in the American Political Science Review was generally positive. Based on this, I do not see that his works are notable enough or have had enough impact to warrant a Wikipedia article. The claim that he has had "works" in the Journal of Politics is misleading at best. As a result of this new information, I've changed my vote to strong delete.PolySciJoe (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This is a strange AFD, I have to say. It is not often that one sees an AFD proposed by an editor with just 19 edits and then several other "newbies" and anonymous IPs chipping in, but not as so often happens to !vote "keep, he's important!", but voting both ways. Although I am very willing to assume good faith, this makes me think that more is going on than is perhaps in the open. Nevertheless, like David Eppstein, I cannot find enough sources to support notability of this person. He's not listed in Web of Science and the number of citations in even Google Scholar is very low. I agree with PolySciJoe (15 edits...) that having published in a journal (or not, as the case may be) is not really very important (what counts is whether these publications have made any measurable impact). As it stands, I don't see any evidence that this meets WP:PROF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for an administrative deletion, which is AfD's scope. Several of both the keep and delete arguments are actually arguments for something else (moves, merges, userfication, etc.), but there is no consensus at this point on what form that should take. That's an editorial decision, and this close should not be considered an end to that discussion, but rather encouragement that it continue from this point. I would remind editors involved in that discussion to remain civil, to remember that the community at large, not any given WikiProject, determines both policy at large and its implementation in specific, and to talk to one another rather than past one another. Continuous repetition doesn't help anything move forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina Pirates future football schedules

[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia. There's nothing encyclopedic about incomplete future schedules. Plus, it is the only article in Category:Conference USA future football seasons, which I've also listed for deletion (here). The user who created this can move this information to a user sub-page, then extract that info when the time comes. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:HAMMER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Essays are not Wikipedia policies" per the link you provided. Wrad (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not everything has to be based on policy. See WP:IAR (itself a policy--oh the irony!). Also, Wikipedia:Five pillars, straight from Jimbo's brain: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules."--GrapedApe (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you are arguing that this should be deleted based on IAR? Hardly a solid reason for deletion. Wrad (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Abstain~~ Keep and userfy information per WP:CRYSTAL--not ready for inclusion. Yes, we want it for later...--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm dropping out. It's well sourced. I wouldn't include it, but if someone wants to keep it I guess it's okay. I still think it's clumsy to do so at this time, as is... but oh, well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reserve the right to change my mind again and again when I'm wrong.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So just to be clear, you do not want to userfy. You want a straight keep? Wrad (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Correct. I changed my position above and am Mr. Flip-Flop in this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the future information is considered notable, it should be placed in articles like 2012 East Carolina Pirates football team, 2013 East Carolina Pirates football team, etc instead of creating a temporarily article like this.—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like what you want is a move, not a delete. Wrad (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Move is a rename to another article name. In this case, the final destination is multiple articles. So delete this one, and re-populate info to their respective article. If responding, please close this thread and respond to similar, more recent thread below at 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC). —Bagumba (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am the creator of this page. I was following many pages out there, including BYU, Colorado and Notre Dame. So I am not sure why this article is the only one receiving this treatment. PG Pirate 02:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, this isn't being singled out - it's just what somebody came across. Thanks for pointing out the other stuff though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PGPirate has a good point here. Shouldn't we consider all of these articles and any other similar ones together? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It's very likely they all fail WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not singling out any team here. We hacked through this stuff before, the conclusion we came to then was that "next year's season" was likely already not only close to solidified, but able to source as well. We then decided that "next year's team" or "next year's schedule" would make a valid article, generally speaking. Beyond one year was difficult to properly source. Of course, that can change and I'm open to revisiting the discussion. PLUS those were "general" discussions and that can always change.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- But I properly sourced all of my data. It isn't an assumption. Many football teams set up their schedule many years in advance. This page shows all that information in one place. I still don't see why this should be deleted. PG Pirate 17:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia =/= ESPN. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't like this article, but I don't see that it (or the other similar articles mentioned) should be deleted. It's not a WP:CRYSTAL violation (or WP:HAMMER) -- if you think so, I suggest you re-read that policy -- because it is not only verifiable but well-sourced, and it meets the criterion that "it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" (each season meets this criterion). As I think about it, this, and any other such articles, should probably be named SCHOOL MASCOT football future seasons (so this would be "East Carolina Pirates football future seasons"). Then, as the start of each future season approaches, that section can be spun off as its own article (e.g "2012 East Carolina Pirates football season"). The article is also clearly not an "indiscriminate collection of information", it contains a discrete set of information, and has the potential for much more (prose) with the name change I suggested. cmadler (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL; while the individual games might not be notable enough for standalone articles, the seasons certainly will be, and the games once scheduled are highly likely to actually be played. The article also does not violate WP:HAMMER; the closest thing a football season has to a "track list" is a list of scheduled games, and that is precisely what the article is listing. Sourcing is for the most part high-quality, being from local newspapers. The media frequently reports on teams scheduling future out of conference opponents as demonstrated by the sourcing in the article; it is not "trivial" as asserted by the nominator. I believe the material in the article meets WP:GNG and therefore should be kept. –Grondemar 23:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be outside the proper scope of wikipedia. This is just a list of games that have not happened, and for all we know will not happen (some games get cancelled for various reasons). I would support deleting any other articles along these same lines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Each individual game is subject to change or cancellation, true, but the probability of each future season occurring is somewhere around 99.99% -- a near-certainty. Since each season, as it occurs (and indeed, up to about 9 months before each begins) is deemed suitable for Wikipedia, a well-sourced article covering plans that have already been made for future seasons should also be suitable. cmadler (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just to demostate that cancellation is a bigger issue than some people are accepting in the Notre Dame article there is this note "At least one additional date home or away if the UConn series is canceled as expected", so it is not only that these are incomplete schedules with lots of TBA, but there is a high probability that they will change. I am unconvinced that the time of a game is general encyclopedic. This just strikes me as too much information. This is not ESPN.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia often gives information about expected future events that is subject to change, and properly so. As long as it continues to be well-sourced, this is little different than an article in 2007 dealing with the constantly changing 2008 US Presidential Primary schedule. cmadler (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Norte Dame is the exception, more than the rule. They are independent (not in a football conference), so their schedule is more fluid than the vast majority of the other FBS teams. Also, people keep saying "Wikipedia isn't ESPN". For a point of information, ESPN doesn't store future schedules.PG Pirate 00:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - By saying "Wikipedia is not ESPN", it's a more reader-friendly way of saying "Wikipedia isn't a [sports conglomerate] who beholds all statistical and schedule-like sports information to the point of absurdity." I knew for a fact that ESPN doesn't list future schedules; it's a relate-able way to get the point across for WP:NOT. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well that is good you knew, but I am letting the voting public know, in case they didn't. PG Pirate 04:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NOTAVOTE. ;) Also, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK might be worth linking to when using "WP is not ESPN". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        One or two little case studies does not change the fact that an agreement to play is a contract, and those contracts are rarely broken. They are exceptions proving a general rule, that is why people report on them in the news. Wikipedia may not be ESPN, but it is supposed to report what the sources say, and this article is well-cited (not even to ESPN, really). Again, this is sounding a lot like you just don't like it and are making up clever little quotes found nowhere in any actual Wikipedia policy to support your position. Wrad (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This meets our inclusion criteria, is appropriately sourced, and is well within accepted and long running practise - Category:Scheduled sports events, which includes 2022 FIFA World Cup, among hundreds of other future scheduled sports events and seasons. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:59, 30 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy As it stands, this page is not up to standards. However, these games are scheduled and do not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Rather, these items should stand as the start to 2012 East Carolina Pirates football team, 2013 East Carolina Pirates football team, etc. once they can be reformatted. The same should be done to the other examples the article creator identified. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When you write that "this page is not up to standards", to what specific standards are you referring? cmadler (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm kind of using the sniff test on this one. It seems to not be notable as it's presented, though its individual items are notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Muboshgu. Wikipedia should not have holder articles for information that will need to be moved to a permanent article later. For example, we would have United States presidential election, 2016, not United States presidential election, future candidates. Similarly, articles like 2012 East Carolina Pirates football team, 2013 East Carolina Pirates football team, should be created if such seasons will likely be notable. Schedules themselves are not notable, but the seasons might be. It is inappropriate to have an article of rotating timely information that will soon be dated and constantly needs to be rotated out. This could be considered WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:ROUTINE, which both discourage articles based on mere announcements.—Bagumba (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I agree that this should be renamed (and somewhat reworked, but it's relatively minor) from "schedules" to "seasons" -- I mentioned that above. Each of those future seasons is likely to occur and likely to be notable, and in fact some future seasons might already be able to meet GNG. In keeping with your point about United States presidential election, 2016, which currently redirects to United States presidential election, do you think it would be better to merge this information into List of East Carolina Pirates football seasons, as a section between the "Seasons" and "References" sections? cmadler (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there a reason to put future opponents in a centralized section or article as opposed to just listing them in individual season articles? Are opponents really notable outside of a season?—Bagumba (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think this is right. The seasons are notable, even future ones, though "future opponents" in general are not. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem is that we obviously aren't ready to create, for example, 2018 East Carolina Pirates football team. In the past, I believe information on future schedules (one aspect -- usually the one known farthest in advance -- of seasons) was included as a section within the main team article (e.g. East Carolina Panthers football, though that didn't happen in this specific case). The information eventually grew to take up too big a part of the main team articles and was pushed off into sub-articles such as the one we're discussing. Looked at with that in mind, I think the issue facing us is that we have sourced information (elements of future schedules, or in the case of some of the Notre Dame seasons, full schedules) on a notable topic, but we aren't sure where to put it. As I mentioned, although it will eventually (years from now) go into the individual season articles, that is not a good solution right now. It could go into the "main" article, but there was a valid reason such content was originally pushed out. If you say that we shouldn't collect future seasons into a single article, and as I've already mentioned we can't push the information down a level to all the season articles, the only thing left is to push the information up, either to the lists of seasons or back into the main articles. (You'll note that I'm using some generalities, because I think we should seek an outcome that can be similarly applied to all such articles.) cmadler (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not see why it is "obvious" that an article on a future season cannot be created. It would satisfy WP:CRYSTAL since "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". It seems preferable to place verifiable information in an article that is likely to exist as opposed to creating a news article with transient information.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If there is any verifiable information on a subject, it's not too soon to start its article, even if it is about a football season that will take place in 2018. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to East Carolina Pirates football#Future schedules. Useful info related to this team's football program, but doesn't really stand alone as an article. De FaultRyan 20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is completely different from the United States presidential election. No one officially knows who will be in the 2016 etc presidential elections, that IS WP:CRYSTAL. The future football schedules I have listed are in a contract and outside of extraneous forces, they will occur. Plus having every future season as its own page isn't very concise and would be better for all of the end-users to use. Also, previous season's have different ways of disseminating this information. Some have a 10-year "block" to show the schedule and results, such as Texas A&M Aggies football, 1930–1939. Other teams have it by their coach like Penn State Nittany Lions football under Joe Paterno (as an Independent). The second one couldn't be used because it would be WP:CRYSTAL to assume the present coach would be here for the next season. I don't see why something like the 10-year block for the future schedules isn't appropriate. Here's to being WP:BOLD. PG Pirate 21:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why "having every future season as its own page isn't very concise". Each article would have the scheduled opponents for that respective season. Unless we are arguing that these seasons might not be notable later, I think it is even bolder to create the articles now instead of creating a holding article and inevitably having to spin out later.—Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is that some of these articles will be very short, perhaps too short to defend as an article. For example, if East Carolina signs a deal to play Texas (for example) in a home-and-home series in 2019–2020, would it really make sense to create the article 2020 East Carolina Pirates football team just to mention that one game? I think it makes much more sense to keep all of the future games in a single list article, until there is enough information on the upcoming season to better justify the existence of the team season article. –Grondemar 00:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is the concern that someone might come in and AfD the future season article on the grounds that it doesnt have enough sources to meet WP:GNG? If so, I think we should ignore all rules and allow these articles to be created since the article is likely to be notable based on precedence of other current season articles. It seems like an improvement to our process to avoid the creation of holding articles in lieu of creating the actual season articles.—Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact that a list's membership may change over time is no reason not to have the list article. A list such as this is appropriate when there is very little detail that would justify creating a future season article. This is similar to the principle of WP:HAMMER; if we only knew about one song on a future album, would we keep an article about the album? WP:SAL also encourages creating lists of information that, while notable in collection, would have difficulty justifying its existence in separate articles. –Grondemar 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:HAMMER is more applicable to an article based on unverified information, of which an album without a title is a symptom of a non-notable article. Of course there are no names to football seasons, and verifiable sources is not an issue here. Again, I think we are getting too ingrained into policies and guidelines here, and should just start the future season articles based on the verifiable information for a future season that is likely to be notable. If the season never becomes notable, they can be deleted later.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into East Carolina Pirates football article. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- East Carolina Pirates football is already a decent-size article at almost 5000 words; adding this much content specifically about future schedules would be WP:UNDUE weight. Having a separate list of future schedules is in the spirit of WP:Summary style, although a brief paragraph on the future schedules should be added to the main team article. –Grondemar 00:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The East Carolina page is around 5000 words, but other college pages may be longer, so it would make those articles even longer. Not a good idea. PG Pirate 20:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ballism and irrelevant information for wikipedia. Each year can have an article, not all future years.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take another look at WP:CRYSTAL, which prohibits unverified speculation. This is neither speculative (for most games contracts have already been signed by the schools) nor is it unverified (in fact, it's well-cited). cmadler (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, then, it's not a crystal ball article--just a useless one.--GrapedApe (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being "useful" or "useless" is not a deletion issue. It's too much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let me be clear: I don't like it either. I think the article creators should have waited or even voluntarily agreed to move the whole shmeer to userspace. But that isn't the way it works. Editors can choose to be enthusiastic about virtually any subject they wish. Our questions should only be if the articles are notable and otherwise don't violate any policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the lecture, but I'm aware of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT essay. This is an article whose content is completely without encyclopedic value. Delete it, for the good of the cause.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll bite which "good" and which "cause" do you speak of? Please be specific.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll spell it out: The "cause" is making a better encyclopedia. The "good" is having articles that are worthwhile. ERgo, deleting this article is good (i.e. not having articles without worth) for the cause (i.e. making a better encyclopedia). Please advise if you require more specificity. Thanks.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I appreciate you taking the time to get more specific. The challenge that the argument faces is that if an article is "good" or "worthwhile" is a matter of opinion. As we have seen here, opinions can vary greatly from one person to another. Notability, however, is not a matter of opinion. Now, if you can show where the article violates a specific policy then I'm with you on it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:IAR.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        To be more specific (and I know how important that is): deleting this improves the encyclopedia. Why? Because it's about games up to 7 years into the future. For the record, those freshman players are in 6th grade right now.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        But you still haven't explained why it would be an improvement to delete the article. Why is 7 years in the future too far out? Should we apply that thinking to 2022 Winter Olympics? I agree we should ignore the rules when the rules prevent making the encyclopedia better. You have only scratched an opinion on why ignoring the rules would do that, and one that many here seem to disagree. So the freshman players are in sixth grade right now, so what? They're not going to be the only noteworthy people involved in the program--coaches come to mind. But even without that, there are significant reliable sources here. You need to do better than "the games are in the future"--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do you think that it must be kept. How will the sum of human knowledge be advanced by noting in an encyclopedia that in 7 years the Pirates play the WVU Muntaineers at A TIME TO BE DETERMINED?--GrapedApe (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I tend to agree with the essay at WP:USEFUL, which means that being useful or not useful is not really an argument to make in deletion. Wikipedia is filled with articles that many would say are not "useful" -- as for the advancement of the sum human knowledge, we don't do that here either. Wikipedia does not participate in original research--we build encyclopedic articles--sometimes those articles are based on other people's original research after they have advanced the sum of human knowledge. Further, I tend to agree with the essay at WP:COMPREHENSIVE that states Wikipedia "does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information on notable subjects."--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So, if I created a completely well cited article about New York City future weather, with a continually-updated 7 day forecast of NYC, you would keep it? What about Long Beach tide chart? You would think all of them unencyclopedic and unworthy of inclusion?--GrapedApe (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Hard to say without seeing the sources first, but go for it! You'll probably have trouble with WP:NOTNEWS because it would need to be continually refreshed as it would be better suited for WikiNews. This clearly does not fit that category as the article is not the next game played by Eastern Carolina Pirates football team.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        To me, this shows the absurdity on the keep !votes: they would support an article with the 7 day forecast article.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Read it again 1) I didn't say I'd support it, I said you'd have trouble with it. 2) I said that would be a different article altogether and doesn't apply. 3) No one else said they'd support it, so saying "they" is giving undue weight to an already incorrect argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is totally unnecessary games not taken place and even if have shouldn't be on here not notable.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Are you saying that we should delete the article because college football seasons are not notable? We have featured articles on college football seasons such as 2005 Texas Longhorns football team and 2007 USC Trojans football team. College football is widely covered by high-quality reliable sources in the US such as the New York Times. The subject of college football easily meets WP:GNG many times over. If your argument is that we should delete the article because the games have not yet taken place, note that, as noted above by several people, WP:CRYSTAL only prohibits unsourced speculation about future events. Future events highly likely to take place with verifiable, notable information about them are most definitely allowed. Articles like 2016 Olympic Games, 2018 FIFA World Cup, and even United States presidential election, 2012 should be deleted by that logic. –Grondemar 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment many and perhaps all of the games to be played should exceed the threshold of WP:GNG when they are played and will most likely be considered notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment the key word there was when they are played.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Correction I made a mistake. Instead of "when they are played" I should have said "now" because of the significant independent third party coverage for the events now. I was confused as I was responding to the argument that even when they will be played they will not be notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a list of fixtures there is no guarantee they will happen whether things are currently confirmed or not. Once they have been played then ok but until then it is essentially a non notable fixture list which is not what wiki is for. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response that doesn't matter, because the events are getting covered in reliable sources today, which is exactly what Wikipedia is for.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Completely wrong see my comment below Secret ^account 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Confused The statement below of yours that I see merely states that you think that more general discussion needs to take place on future schedules. If that's what you are referencing, then how am I be "completely wrong" when by your own admission (that there is need for discussion) I could actually be "completely right" ?? Am I reading the wrong one?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Found it and I have to say those arguments do not make my position "completely wrong" at all. WP:CRYSTAL is not violated, as is clearly outlined in other arguments on this page so I won't re-hash it. It isn't WP:OR because of all the citations in the article from independent, reliable sources. Maybe WP:NOTNEWS can apply, but myself and others do not think it applies here as well. College football scheduling is a big deal. At most, we disagree but you have not invalidated any argument I or others have made, merely disagreeing with it. By using the phrase "completely wrong" you are putting undue weight on to the various arguments made.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I meant my delete comment, not the more discussion comment. Secret ^account 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame Fighting Irish football future schedule, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado Buffaloes football future schedule, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYU Cougars future football schedules.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The kinds of teams a university can get on its future schedule often say a lot about where that school is headed in the national picture. This article is well-organized and well-cited. It is not indiscriminate. It confines itself to East Carolina alone. Finally, WP:NOT contains no policy against this kind of article. Nowhere does it say "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia." In my opinion, you can't just say "Wikipedia is not..." and then add whatever suits you. Wrad (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" from Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Well-organised and well-cited are not sufficient for inclusion, neither is not explicitly being advised against. Even though it is (here).--Carbon Rodney 06:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This page is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It has a limited topic and it sticks to that topic. An indiscriminate collection would talk about all kinds of things with no apparent connection between them. WP:BALL does not apply because this is not rumor or speculation. These are signed contracts of agreement to play in a certain season. Wrad (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:DISCRIMINATE: the list is not indiscriminate at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at its current state. I personally rather see these type of articles split off to the proper 2012 and 2013 season articles. Yes these college football seasons unless some unexpected thing, such as the closure of the football program happens, will get played. But I don't see the point on why an article on the "future football schedule" should exist instead of the season article. The season articles can be formed for these games, as there's enough information, including recruiting players, coaching contracts and so forth.

The title indicates "a future schedule", which Wikipedia isn't the news for, and after 2014 or so, deep into WP:CRYSTAL territory. These schedules can change anytime, for example West Virginia is trying to terminate the contract for playing Florida State next season [10]. If West Virginia is allowed to get out of the contract with Florida State, and with all the conference realignment and such, these schedules are going become highly unstable, and usefulness of the list is gone. There's consensus to delete lists that are very dependent on current events that is very uncertain, and this list is depending on original research on who they might play in their conference and such.

Also just because it's mentioned in reliable sources doesn't mean that it automatically passes WP:N. We have WP:NOT#NEWS for articles such like this. If everything mentioned with a reliable source gets an article, this project will be a BLP and news nightmare, not an encyclopedia. I hope some of the keeps reconsider their position with the article, as many of the keeps (and some of the deletes) rationales are faulty. Secret ^account 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are motioning for move or merge rather than delete in your suggestions here. Wrad (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept a move or a merge, as long as the confusing title is removed and it's heavily trimmed (like information from 2016 and such) Secret ^account 00:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From WP:CRYSTAL: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative." - Most of the times and some of the venues are 'TBA'. I think an argument can be made for the 2012 schedule but not for anything beyond that. The article iteself claims that UConn is expected to be canceled but that this report is unconfirmed. With so much up in the air, I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia.--Carbon Rodney 06:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently you are not reading the cited sources. The information in this article is verifiable and is not original research. They are signed contracts of agreement to play, with only a few exceptions. There really isn't a lot up in the air here. Wrad (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although my preference is to see these put into the relevant 2012, 2013, etc. articles, the discussion of forking/splitting should take place after there is a consensus on whether to keep or delete the content. With verifiable information at hand, I do not think WP:CRYSTAL or WP:HAMMER are entirely relevant. In fact, the parts of WP:CRYSTAL that CarbonRodney omitted state: 1) "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." and 2) "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." These future football seasons are almost certain to take place and that information can be verified. Whether or not the content is "indiscriminate", "trivial", "unnecessary", "irrelevant", or "unencyclopdic" is POV, however, I would concede that a case could be made that the content violates the "routine announcements" clause of WP:NOT#NEWS. Location (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear with how this AFD is forming that the college football editor community is confused to what to do with these articles, as it's not specified in WP:NSPORTS. I think further discussion should be mentioned there before any other articles or AFDs are created of the subject. Secret ^account 07:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with notability once it happens. But for now it's a list of fixtures that there is no guarantee will happen. Something else that has occurred to me which I don't know if is the case with there's or not. For instance if we publish a list of fixtures for football in the uk we are in breach of copyright the games have to be played before we are able to show them. It would take someone more familiar with the topic to answer that.Edinburgh Wanderer 10:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how publishing a list of games that are known to be scheduled is a copyright issue, since copyright doesn't cover facts, only an expression of those facts. If "the games have to be played" before they can be published as a list, then how is anyone to know of future sporting events? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems nonsensical. cmadler (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

":It may be nonsensical but its totally true. The leagues in the uk charge companies on licence to display the fixtures and are covered by copyright. If wikipedia shows them then we are breaching copyright law. I do not know if this is the case here as have little knowledge of the setup.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that's very interesting, and every bit as much a farce as the National Portrait Gallery row. Like the NPG dispute, this fixture claim appears to be based on a "sweat of the brow" doctrine, which is explicitly rejected in US case law (cf. Feist v. Rural); since Wikipedia (and the parent Wikimedia Foundation) are based in Florida, "the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States" (WP:PD). cmadler (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his will definately be a notable topic, but not under this title and not today. There just aren't sufficient reliable sources available. Until the schedule is annouced, this article will be completely based on conjecture and rumor and is merely WP:CRYSTAL ball gazing. RadioFan (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take another look at this article, which is based on published statements regarding signed contracts -- hardly "conjecture and rumor" -- and at WP:CRYSTAL, which is blatantly not applicable here ("All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."). cmadler (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are no more rumors than are signed declarations of war. Wrad (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have we read WP:BALL lately?
- Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. - Every point has a verified news source
- All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. - Previous year-by-year football schedule articles AND year-by-year articles bulked together (i.e. by decade or coach) are already accepted on Wikipedia.
- It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. - n/a
- It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. - This article is 100% fact. No opinion exist.
- Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. - n/a
- In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). - n/a
- Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. - Individual games and season are notable. Contracts are complete and they're "almost certain to take place". Preparation for the events are already in progress per the contracts the schools have with each other.
- Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names - n/a
- Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. - Only facts are listed.
- While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected... - n/a
- Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors - n/a

- PG Pirate 17:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yep, looks like WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here. Wrad (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I flipped through a 2003 hard cover, paper copy encyclopedia last night - couldn't find any such entries for future schedules of anything. Then I flipped through a recent Sports Illustrated magazine and saw upcoming NBA games. To clarify my point for those whose heads it went over: This ECU article is unencyclopedic by its very nature. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What up Straw man PG Pirate 21:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly a reason for deletion. There are plenty of things Wikipedia has that paper encyclopedias don't have. Why not look at the sources that the article does cite? Wrad (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTPAPER comes to mind. Gosh, there is a lot of [{WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] here!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too bad WP:BALL doesnt address why we need to park this news in a single future schedule article for multiple seasons, when articles like 2012 East Carolina Pirates football team, 2013 East Carolina Pirates football team, etc are where this information will ultimately reside. It would be good to get consensus on where to present this information, which is verifiable and not rumors. This cannot be dont outside an AfD, since its not a matter of a redirect if its decided the information doesnt belong in this article. We can't redirect to multiple future seasons.—Bagumba (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I understand your comment. Wrad (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Put another way: Why not delete East Carolina Pirates future football schedules and put information in 2012 East Carolina Pirates football team, 2013 East Carolina Pirates football team, where the final schedule will ultimately be anyways. We are creating too much work for ourselves creating holding articles.—Bagumba (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not for that idea, which is a whole other debate. But current practice is to combine a "block" of years together, when just the schedule is put together. Single season pages are implemented when other facts are presented, such as the recruiting class and game history. I still think it is better to block all future schedules in one article. PG Pirate 21:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Based on the divergent responses in this AfD, it doesnt appear there is consensus for this "current practice" yet. Can you expand on why it is "better to block all future schedules in one article" instead of putting it in the article it will inevitably end up in?—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you're able to divulge more information out of a "future block". A reader is able to see if this is a one-time game or apart of a series. The reader is able to see if a particular future schedule looks harder one year than another. Outside of the schedule, nothing is known about the future schedule, and I believe doesn't warrant a separate page until more information is factually know (such as recruiting commit). PG Pirate 23:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        As Muboshgu (talk · contribs) stated earlier, "If there is any verifiable information on a subject, it's not too soon to start its article, even if it is about a football season that will take place in 2018." The season future seasons for all intents and purposes will be notable—start and add information to it now, not later. Having to wait for recruiting commitments is an artificial rule which forces IMO unneccesary holding articles such as this one. Regarding your point about "one-time game or apart of a series" and "schedule looks harder one year than another", these points aren't any more notable for future games than it is for past games. If it is notable at all, there should be a general East Carolina Pirates football opponents that covers both past and future opponents, not a specific future schedule article like we have here.—Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:NOTDIR says Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. I can imagine future football schedules would be a small article. So it is permitted to merge the group based on the core topic (future schedules). PG Pirate 21:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Just because the article is "permitted" by a policy, does not mean it is advisable or should be blindly followed. Unless you are arguing that the future season articles will remain small or you are doubting they are notable, I again contend we are unnecessarily creating extra articles and work for ourselves. There has been no reason why the presentation of future opponents should be handled differently and separately from past opponents if the reason to keep is "to see if this is a one-time game or apart of a series"—Bagumba (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So once again, when policy arguments break down, people fall back on IAR. IAR is hardly a solid reason for deletion here, and basically adds up to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thank you, though, for admitting that Wikipedia policy supports the article's existence. Wrad (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary, I am having a discussion and not just dropping acronyms or just pointing at a policy or guideline. Feel free to comment on why we should not treat all series with opponents, both past and future, in the same article if the point is for readers to see if a game is a "one-time game or apart of a series". Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to brush aside all of these quotations and lengthy explications of actual Wikipedia policy as violations of WP:JUSTAPOLICY has got some serious denial issues. Wrad (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I saw another person reference the sports notability page. First off The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline, or the sport specific criteria set forth below. - Yes this is done. Now to the specific criteria below on Individual seasons. Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements. Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. - There is well sourced, but decent prose. It goes on to say In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article. - Individual future seasons are notable enough on their own (i.e. individual pages for each future year), but you're able to group them together any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article. What more reasonable standard than future schedules on one page?

Also from the Wikipedia is not a directory, these future seasons are notable enough to pass the NOTDIR sniff test. Also it says Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. I can imagine future football schedules would be a small article. So it is permitted to merge the group based on the core topic (future schedules).

To the people who want to merge it with East Carolina Pirates football, you need to worry about Wikipedia:Article size. I assume that page is fairly average in length. Some other schools with a greater history could be longer.

So now what? PG Pirate 23:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Great stuff on sports notability, PGPirate. Shoving all of this into the main team page doesn't make much sense. There just isn't room and there would be all kinds of WP:UNDUE going on. Splitting it all up into half a dozen new articles doesn't make much sense, either, not only because it is more convenient to have it all in one place, but also because future schedules aren't presented that way in a lot of the source material. Usually what is said is that "team x and team y have signed deal z to play from year a to year b under conditions c." That kind of reporting in the source material lends itself to a long horizon kind of look, not a year by year look. Wrad (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree merging to the main article is in appropriate in this case. But my main concern here is that there is no guarantee these game will ever be played yes a contract has been signed so WP:CRYSTAL dosent totally apply but were talking a long time away anything can happen that could cause these matches not to be played. The team is notable, by definition the seasons are but is a fixture list of anything not just this team notable. fixtures will receive coverage when a team is notable but is this more than just routine coverage personally i feel not. These should be added to relevant season articles when they are due to be played not even created now. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is doing the Crystal Balling now? Talk about speculation! "Anything can happen." By that logic the sun might not come out tomorrow. And the 2020 Olympics might be cancelled due to a world war. And the Presidential elections scheduled in Egypt might be rescheduled because of a revolution. The fact is, the sources decide what is reliable, and Wikipedia follows suit. If the sources say such and such event will happen at such and such a time, that is what Wikipedia says until sources say things have changed. Wrad (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but in such a case, the schedule change will probably continue to be noted in the article(s). For an example, see 2003 Eastern Michigan Eagles football team#Schedule. cmadler (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Don't take offence to what is say I'm just stating facts there is no guarantee these matches will take place you will also note in my delete vote i did not quote WP:CRYSTAL one of the few people against this that didn't. If we were taking this year or next then maybe but 2018. Anyway its a fixture list i cannot see how it is notable in any way shape or form. As i said the club is there seasons are but a fixture list. The coverage is tottaly routine. One of the sources even says they have agreed in principal no guarantee there.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense taken, but I don't really see it. I mean is anything 100% gonna happen tomorrow? I mean you're getting down to some real philosophical stuff. CFB set up these long series to keep out the flux of having to scramble for games in the near future. It is the nature of the beast. Could a game get switched? Of course, but why should we let a "maybe" like that, take hostage a whole new series of wikipedia pages? PG Pirate 01:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, when a game is scheduled and announced and subsequently rescheduled or cancelled, the change will probably continue to be noted in the article(s). For an example, see 2003 Eastern Michigan Eagles football team#Schedule. cmadler (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question I've seen the word used a lot here: what is a "fixture" list?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For us Yankees: "a. a sports match or social occasion b. the date of such an event"—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes a fixture list is a list of dates set for sports games. We describe a game as a fixture therefore fixture list. It never occurred to me that term was British English only. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please review the article, specifically the 2012 section. You will note that I have added some details about the history of games with schools on the list--an example of additional information that can be added to the list. Editors more enthusiastic than me about the ECU program can (and likely will) add more and better such details over time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your edits, should this article be renamed to East Carolina Pirates football opponents if the point is to discuss series with specific opponents, then all opponents—past, present and future–should be covered. I dont see why future opponents need a special article, but an article about all series with opponents past and future would be encyclopedic.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Worth considering, but that wasn't my intent.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we want to see whether future opponents are part of a series, we should just rename the article for general opponents. Of course it might initially only be populated with future opponents, but in time they will turn into past opponents. If the article will just list future opponents on a per season basis, we should cut the red tape and just create the individual future season articles and delete this one.—Bagumba (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The point isn't to discuss series with opponents. The point is to provide future schedule information. This information is widely discussed in sports media and deserves its own article. I don't see why anyone would think that splitting all of this information up into a number of tiny articles would make anything any better. As it is, this article is concise, it is unified, it is well-cited, it provides a useful function and limits itself to that function. Scattering things around or making a big behemoth of an article covering every schedule for every year are both proposals that make zero sense to me. Wrad (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It might not be your point, but the article creator, PGPirate, wants it so "A reader is able to see if this is a one-time game or apart of a series." Recent edits by Paulmcdonald have added more historical information about series with individual future opponents.—Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, future games are often scheduled as part of a series, but that doesn't change the fact that they are "future." It also doesn't change the fact that suggestions to split this article are ultimately unwieldy and unfriendly to Wikipedia readers. Wrad (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would just like to make all of the editors here aware that this entire Afd was started by an editor who, judging by his own highly inappropriate and inflammatory comments on the Notre Dame future schedules Afd, has personal issues with what he deems to be "insignificant" sports teams. See this diff, where he rudely tells Paul McDonald "Don't you have some Kansas backyard NAIA teams to write about?" [11] As a native Kansan, I find that comment extremely offensive, ignorant, and rude, while at the same time extremely effective at revealing the weak basis for this Afd. Wrad (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh hai straw man, I can haz Kansas pride back? So, tell me again what my other edit has to do with the merits of this debate? All I can see is a drastic resort by Wrad to breaking down another editor's character to strengthen his own argument. Tisk tisk. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your inflammatory comment stands on its own, my friend. How odd that rather than apologize and withdraw your comment, you only make more petty remarks and make the weakness of the reasoning behind this AfD even more obvious. Wrad (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Legitimately, I stopped caring about this AfD a couple days ago. It's been quasi-entertainment for a while now to see how voracious the keep !votes have been. Whether the outcome is delete, keep or no consensus, at the least there will be precedence on these types of articles, so that's good. You know why I stopped caring? I know there are more important things to worry about. Have fun with this, and similar other, AfDs. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a pretty even split of arguments for keeping and deleting. We have calls to merge, move, and userfy. Clearly there is no consensus. I think the only reasonable end that can come out of this Afd mess is that it be closed and that everyone talk more about these kinds of articles at Wikiproject College Football, where people who know about the organization of such topics on Wikipedia can draw up guidelines for handling this sort of information without the nastiness of an Afd. Wrad (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with "no consensus." The keep !votes are absurdly reasoned and, I would argue, should be discounted.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I think it depends how the admin views the strength of the arguments. I think in its current state it would likely be brought back to AFD in the near future. I actually think that the above idea of opponents and then I would turn the current future fixtures into a lower section on organised fixtures would be much better and I certainly think with good sourcing it would pass more than routine coverage wouldn't just be a fixture list do personally I think that would have merit for being a standalone article. Obviously work needs done before that's the case. Edinburgh Wanderer 09:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haha! Wouldn't that be convenient. I think the delete !votes are absurdly reasoned, but I'm not brash enough to say that they should all be discounted. Now THAT would be absurd! I strongly disagree with deleting, but I think some good ideas have come up on all sides here. I'm sure that the editors in this discussion who disagreed with you (half of the contributors to this page) would be glad to know that their opinions are so highly valued by you. Wrad (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is consensus that this information, when it is about major sports teams, is encyclopedic. Even under the strictest interpretation of GNG, the plans made for such purposes are discussed in reliable sources, and, when they do , WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies. What I think there is still disagreement about is how it should be handled, : where it should go, and what we should title the articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be lying if I didn't say I'd go for that, too. Wrad (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: See below Per WP:GNG. Despite all of the smokescreen above about what policy to apply, it doesn't look like anyone actually critically checked the sources:
- Source 1 verifies only the 2011-12 (and I accept that the 2012 season itself is close enough, reliable enough, etc., to have an article)
- Sources 2,3, 4, 8, 9, and 10 are not independent of either ECU or the team being played against; they may be used for information, but do not establish notability.
- Sources 5, 6, and 7 are being used only to verify past games, and thus do not speak towards the notability of the future games that are the subject of this article.
- Source 11 is an opinion article, and thus not a reliable source for factual information, per WP:RS
- Source 12 may be acceptable. It's a blog, but I think it falls under WP:NEWSBLOG. However, the source itself points out one of the flaws in the entire argument about these being contracted: it's all about arguments between two schools about whether they're even going to honor the contracts.
- Source 13 appears to pass muster. However, it does not discuss the subject of the article in depth, mentioning ECU's game only in passing as part of a much larger list. Thus, it does meet the requirements of "in detail" set forth in WP:GNG

So, in summary, we have, maybe, 1 reliable, independent source that verifies that this is a notable topic, plus another that discusses it not in-depth. So, this article must be deleted per WP:GNG Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I just would like to point out that this is one (of many) reasons why BYU and Notre Dame's future schedule articles should not be judged on this article's merits, as some have suggested. Neither of them have this problem. They are independent schools without set conference schedules, and thus their future matchups are considered more significant by the national news media than most schools, as evidenced by coverage by USA Today and ESPN. Wrad (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian is correct that there isnt enough independent coverage identified to satisfy GNG. ~~The article is also an orphan.~~ Readers used to the convention of "XXXX East Carolina Pirates football team" to get to a specific season will not find this article or the schedule they are looking for, and having to create redirects is yet another overhead this format will create. ~~This article is already an orphan;~~ do we realistically expect people will remember to also create proper redirects on top of that? And do we really want to have to guard against duplicate schedule information when the season article is inevitably created? Perhaps a point is being made, because I fail to see how having separate articles for each future season would not be more user-friendly and less unwieldy for readers and editors alike. And if the intent is to also see a snapshot of a series with a specific opponent over many years, I fail to see why this article would limit itself to future opponents and not cover past opponents as well.—Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to ((East Carolina Pirates football navbox)) -- it should have already been there, and should be there if kept -- which means its no longer orphaned. cmadler (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more unwieldy because it would be less information scattered around in more places. Wrad (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How? I am proposing article for each season, a standard convention, and another article (perhaps this one renamed and reformatted) to have a list of all opponents (past and future) and with series notes on each opponent. Any other suggestions on items to be addressed?—Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are all kinds of problems with that. First, would you support the creation of a 2020 East Carolina football article with one or two teams on it? Would that really get enough support on its own to avoid an AfD? Second, you are talking as though all games against opponents are played as part of a series. This is not the case. A lot of games that are scheduled are not part of a series at all. Thus, the article you are proposing would not be the neat and tidy, convenient article you seem to think it would. It would be a monster. Wrad (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would improve Wikipedia to assume that all future seasons on NCAA Div I FBS football teams are notable if any verifiable information exists. Muboshgu supported this as well. I hope nobody doubts that sources will not eventually be identified to establish notability. The alternative is a (IMO non-optimal) workaround like this article needs to be created and justified and discussed. The structure of an "opponents article" could use Oakland_Raiders#Raiders_vs._opponents as a strawman, where the year of the first meeting and series record is shown. Columns could be added to note future commitments. The UCLA football's all-time opponents are neatly captured in one page on page 70 of its media guide. Size is not an issue, as we already have articles of all-time rosters of sports teams with hundreds of entries.—Bagumba (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those examples provides even the most fundamental information provided in this article: information about who team x is playing in specific years and dates in the future, or whether they are playing them at home or away. We already have information like you are proposing in main team articles like Nebraska Cornhuskers football. Why should we split all of these off into separate articles? How does your proposal maintain the convenience of having one place to look at all future schedule information on one team? Wrad (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*I wasnt trying to address "convenience of having one place to look at all future schedule", since this is the first I've heard it (apologies if I missed). Following is what people have asked for (feel free to add):

Opponents for a specific future season with venue information in one view (e.g. 2015 East Carolina Pirates football team)
Series information for an opponent (both past or future) in one article List of East Carolina Pirates football opponents)
Future opponents and venue information sorted by season in one article (e.g. East Carolina Pirates future football schedules)
Single article naming convention to access past and future season schedules (either actual article or redirect) (e.g. 2015 East Carolina Pirates football team)
A list of future opponents in team article is WP:UNDUE (e.g. East Carolina Pirates future football schedules or List of East Carolina Pirates football opponents)

I could live without the convenience of #3 for the benefit of #4, a standard naming of "XXXX East Carolina Pirates football team" for all seasons past and present and avoiding overhead of remembering to redirect and the different name format of #3. Series information, if notable, could be maintained by #2 with a separate article in the format of Oakland_Raiders#Raiders_vs._opponents with a column for notes added on future games. Season articles named like #1 and #4 with the season's schedule anyways will exist eventually, and articles will or already exist (e.g. Nebraska example) that maintain information about series with opponents to satisfy #2 and #5. Consensus can decide if we want to support customized article for #3 with duplicate information exclusively for future opponents.—Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell you what I would support, and this might be something that could work for both Independent and non-Independent schools: What if we had an article like this one: [[12]], that listed information on future seasons and served as a holder until the season became current? I would support that kind of look. It would keep the information convenient and it would also keep things conventional. Future season articles could be named conventionally and redirected to something like a "Future seasons of" page, which would have the same look and feel as current season articles, as per the link above. Wrad (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on 12/22, I think that would be better, and it should follow the naming convention SCHOOL MASCOT football future seasons (so this would be "East Carolina Pirates football future seasons"). cmadler (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it goes without saying that schools without independently verifiable information about future seasons wouldn't have an article like this. Wrad (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; I didn't think it needed to be said! cmadler (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support creating holder articles when the actual specific season article can be created. Also points #2 and #4 are not addressed. People can desire this customized article with duplicated information, and consensus may deem it useful, but it is not needed as a holder.—Bagumba (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what "duplicated information" you're seeing here. I don't see any in this proposal. If a season article can be created, then create it and move on! (Honestly, though, I think that you would be hard pressed to make a decent, separate season article until the previous season is over at least. Until then, information on future seasons should be kept together. That's how national news sources handle it. They discuss the future in broad terms in a lot of sources, but they don't say much about "next season" until the current season is over or almost over.) #2 is already handled elsewhere in article space and shouldn't be a part of the proposed page. I believe that my proposal directly addresses #4. "Future seasons of SCHOOL MASCOT football team" fits the naming convention well enough (or Cmadler's proposal, I honestly don't really think it matters) You can't call it "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team" because the year range would keep on changing (from 2012-2023 to 2013-2025 to 2014-XXXX). We have a convention for "SCHOOL MASCOT football team" and so long as we stick to that that's good enough, I believe. Wrad (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care so much about the exact way it's named, but I think it should refer to "future seasons" rather than "future schedules". cmadler (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More on convention. My proposal would follow an established convention. I propose "SCHOOL MASCOT football (upcoming seasons)" Observe:

It's just as legitimate a convention as any other.

So here's re-clarification of the proposal. For schools that can provide independent sources for such articles, we allow articles with the naming convention "SCHOOL MASCOT football (upcoming seasons)." This article takes on the (general pattern of Notre Dame Fighting Irish football (1990–1999) or Baylor Bears football (1980–1989). Once an individual season gets enough source material to merit its own article, it is split off into a new article and all information on that season is removed from the "(upcoming seasons)" article. No duplication, no unverifiable information, no naming-convention breaking. Everyone goes home happy. Wrad (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we create "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team" for each single future season to satisfy #1 and #4, and assuming #2 is created, #3 would duplicate information in the earlier articles. "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team" is supposed to be about a single year, like "2015 SCHOOL MASCOT football team". Regarding your comment of "they don't say much about 'next season' until the current season is over or almost over.": East Carolina Pirates future football schedules has verified info for 2012–2018. That is more than just "next season". As for naming convention of "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team", if "2015 SCHOOL MASCOT football team" doesnt exist, but "SCHOOL MASCOT football (upcoming seasons)" does as you propose, someone needs to create the redirect, an overhead I'd rather avoid. #4 otherwise fails because there are two formats a user needs to know: "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team" for past teams, and "SCHOOL MASCOT football (upcoming seasons)" for future seasons.—Bagumba (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, if you look closely at East Carolina's article here, if we made a 2018 article or even a 2013 article, they really wouldn't have much on their own, let's be honest. 2012 might have enough for an article if someone did some real digging. As I said, then, we need an article that talks about the big picture, and, when an individual season gets enough independent sources, we follow suit and split the article off.
Redirects really aren't that hard. Besides, the convention is already there to support it. Just type in 1981 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team for one of many, many examples.
I'm still at a total loss as to how my proposal duplicates anything. Wrad (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We might agree to disagree on this point, but I think future season articles are inherently notable, even with minimal sources today. My earlier comment: "I think it would improve Wikipedia to assume that all future seasons on NCAA Div I FBS football teams are notable if any verifiable information exists. Muboshgu supported this as well. I hope nobody doubts that sources will not eventually be identified to establish notability." If the individual "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team" articles for 2012, 2013, etc are created, "SCHOOL MASCOT football (upcoming seasons)" would have duplicate information from the individual seasons. While either way could work and I could say either approach is a tie, I give the tie-breaker to the fact that "XXXX SCHOOL MASCOT football team" will eventually be created once 2012, 2013, etc rolls around.—Bagumba (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is inherently notable, Bagumba. Take a look at WP:Notability, where it says: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition." Notability is determined by the presence of independent sources. Until sources exist to support individual future year articles, we cannot justify those article's existence. Wrad (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth pillar of Wikipedia says "Wikipedia does not have firm rules ... The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule." I believe a recurring event that will receive coverage such as an NCAA Div I FBS football team's season is that exception. Aside from the fine print of GNG wanting source now, does anyone believe otherwise that it is not notable? We dont need to be ultra-conservative in the event a few schools goes on probation, or the NFL decides to run a semi-pro league to replace college football, the public boycotts the sport due to numerous concussions, etc. The seasons will be notable almost as assuredly as the sun will rise tomorrow and the day after that. While I can appreciate erring on the side of GNG almost in every case, I think a CYA approach of creating an admitted holding article merely to circumvent guidelines is an inefficient method to get verifiable information about individual future seasons into Wikipedia. If we are to follow the letter of the law, Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)'s point of needing independent sources for this article is hard to refute. However, the point is moot if we agree that individual future season are inherently notable.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Another IAR argument. Yes, it is possible to ignore all rules, but usually it is discouraged, and this is one of those times that it should be discouraged. Kindly point out exactly which guidelines are being "circumvented" in my proposal. Be specific. Provide direct quotes. Whether you want to call something a holding article or anything else, if it has independent, verifiable sources, it has a right to exist on Wikipedia. Wrad (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian's earlier points on independent sources establishing notability. While the two of us won't reach a common understanding on this AfD, I think our positions and rationales are—if nothing else—clear now. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you carefully read my proposal, you will read that my suggestion is: "For schools that can provide independent sources for such articles, we allow articles with the naming convention "SCHOOL MASCOT football (upcoming seasons)." Thus, Qwyrxian's points are moot here. No guidelines are being circumvented in my proposal. Period. Wrad (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, I think you're ignoring the fact that combining multiple past seasons into a single article is allowed, and even encouraged when there is little information on the individual seasons. This is what Wrad pointed out with the above links. For example, 1961 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team currently redirects to the mostly-empty Notre Dame Fighting Irish football (1960–1969). At some point that article will get filled in, and we eventually may have so much information on the 1961 team that the information will get pushed off and the redirect will be turned into a real article. I think Wrad is simply suggesting that we apply the same principle to future seasons. cmadler (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being ignored, its a compromise based on points #1–5 in my 20:31, 11 January 2012 comment. The article as-is is IMO inefficient–even if "allowed". Right or wrong, upcoming seasons articles are more likely to be filled than seasons from decades past. There's fewer of them, people get caught up in the present, and Wikipedia only started relatively recently. The approach for past seasons makes sense, since those standalone articles may be created whereas future seasons will be created. Any approach may not be perfect; what we need to do is get a wish list together, which I itemized in the 5 points, and be aware of any compromises we are making. Let's be clear that the status quo itself is not perfect either. Its up to consensus from here. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. It would be far more inefficient (not to mention a violation of Wikipedia policy) to split this article into half a dozen tiny little articles, as Bagumba has proposed. I'm getting a little tired, as I'm sure many of the people involved here are, of people demanding that we all ignore Wikipedia policy so they can get what they want. Wrad (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be convenient if you would all stop this discussion here, and focus on the article in question, because the article in question does not meet our minimum notability guidelines. This discussion belongs either on an article where it's relevant, or at some centralized place. Also, I would personally appreciate it if those commenting above would consider changing their !votes to account for the fact that this article is not well-sourced as claimed. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This article has been nominated as part of a group and we need to discuss it as part of that group. That discussion started here and it needs to continue here. I don't want to (possibly) change my vote until we have an agreement on how to handle these kinds of articles. I feel like an agreement of that kind is absolutely necessary before this AfD can be resolved. Wrad (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Qwyrxian, I dont agree. This is a discussion on what to do with the information in this article. While it is conventionally a !vote of whether to keep or delete, it can be also result in moves. In this case, it could be a delete, but move into multiple articles. If this was merely about presentation of the current article with no deletions needed, I would not be discussing this here. Someone can close this AfD and force it to be discussed elsewhere, but not much will be gained by having to jump start this again on another talk page or in a future AfD or worse yet dropping an active discussion where deletion is still being discussed. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one should be moving this information anywhere, unless it's maybe to the big article East Carolina Pirates football. No matter what name you give it, none of these future seasons has been shown to be notable, because none of them have been discussed in multiple, independent, reliable sources.

Also, this Afd was not nominated as part of a group. The AfD's are not bundled, so each one must be considered separately on its own merits. They may even all be closed by different admins. This page is only for discussion of the possible deletion of East Carolina Pirates future football schedules. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As part of this specific AfD, several people have suggested a move or a merger. That is a legitimate AfD discussion and we're going to have it and we are having it. Wrad (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alright, Qwyrxian, you've awakened the WikiDragon! I have added a number of new references, all of them independent, all of them to official news sources. This article now has 22 citations. I would suggest that anyone who !voted "delete" over WP:GNG or a lack of reliable sources (or for any reason, for that matter) take another long look at this and reconsider. Wrad (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my GNG objection. Part of me wants to make the IAR objection, because to me it seems just ridiculously obvious that this article and the word "encyclopedia" don't belong in the same sentence...heck, in the same page. I don't understand how this beats WP:CRYSTAL, when we have an actual source in the article telling us that different parties agree about whether the contracts will even be followed. But, whatever...fighting a battle against sports enthusiasts is a waste of time. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WABBITSEASON--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manzur Nu'mani

[edit]

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

I am having difficulty finding non-trivial RS coverage of this person. Zero refs. Tagged for being an orphan for well over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As an Indian scholar, systematic bias might make it hard to come up with sources, so I feel we should subject this article to less harsh criticism. What coverage at all have you found? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned up zero Gnews archives hits. Some of the systematic bias concerns he avoids. Like the average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia, he is: (1) a male, (2) formally educated, (3) a non-labourer, hailing from (4) a country win which English is an official (subsidiary, in his case) language. In any event, I don't think that we address systemic bias by lowering our notability standards, but rather by looking carefully for substantive RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is the same person as the Muhammad Manzur Nu'mani who was involved with the Jamaat-e-Islami in the 1940s (this seems likely but not certain), there seem to be quite enough good GBook hits to establish notability - in which case, keep (and add the information to the article). PWilkinson (talk) 13:22, 18 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His name is more commonly transliterated to English as Muhammad Manzoor Nomani. Pseudofusulina (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Or just looking for Manzoor Nomani (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) may be even better - some sources either transliterate Muhammad as Mohammad, abbreviate it or omit it altogether. Given the sources I am now seeing, we are looking at a religious figure (and controversialist) who was influential among at least a significant minority of Indian Muslims from the late 1930s to the 1990s - and Al Furqan, the journal and publishing house he founded in Lucknow, seems to be continuing at least some of that influence even today. The problem now seems to be that while there are quite a few reliable sources, they all seem to be concentrating on particular periods or aspects of his career - I haven't yet spotted any overviews. But while this may make the article tricky to write while avoiding synthesis, I have no doubts of his notability. The conditional keep that I gave above is now definite. PWilkinson (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Epeefleche that we address our systematic bias by looking carefully for sources--but that means looking beyond the googles. Anyone who appears notable on the basis of verifiable information from India would need a careful search in local print sources before rejecting as unsourceable--and our criterion is not unsourced, but unsourceable. Unfortunately, India at present has neither a union catalog of books, nor a comprehensive index to articles in periodicals and newspapers. When such indexes become available, I predict a great expansion of our coverage from that country. Meanwhile, it is rash to make the judgment of unsourceable on the basis of information available online in the US, or indeed from even a print search with resources available in any US library I know of. the source given in even G News by Pseudofusulina's spelling [13] a[[ears sufficient for WEP:V, and enough of an indication of WP:N. DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have over 100 Indian scholar articles on wp. See Category:Indian scholars. It is not clear to me that Indian scholars are "unsourceable". Nor -- correct me if I am incorrect -- is it our policy to keep articles where we lack substantial RS coverage, on the basis of the supposition that such coverage exists. In addition, this article has zero refs -- it is not my understanding (tell me if I am incorrect) that we should by policy keep this information (which I challenge, as it is unreferenced) which lacks any refs, let alone RS refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it an unfortunate dilemma: material which almost certainly can be sourced, but not by any of the people present here. It is not difficult to source Indian scholars who work in Western fields. It is very difficult for the people here to source scholars of hadith, such as he is, Indian or otherwise, --and even harder for Hindu and Buddhist religious scholars. I agree that we can't have articles for which there is no verification at all. However, this does not apply to him.

I admit I made my statement yesterday on a hunch. Today I checked the hunch, and I was correct, since for this particular individual, the books can be verified: [ http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Manzur%20Nu'mani WorldCat listing] -- over 100 books, some translated into English such as Meaning and message of the traditions = Maʻārif al-Ḥadīs̲ : being an English translation of Maulana Mohammad Manzoor Nomaniʼs Maariful Hadith OCLC 13525757 and Islamic faith and practice, OCLC 539491 . I think that certainly meets WP:V, and is probably enough to imply WP:N also. I should really have done this search yesterday. A search of the googles without searching worldcat is inadequate for anyone who may have published books. But some do regard a library catalog as a arcane tool for specialists. So even in the Googles: Epeefleche, did you actually search Google books: [14] Multiple source about him, including several that refers to him as a religious leader, including " another possible contender for the office of amir was Muhammad Manzur Nu'mani, a Deobandi religious leader, who was the editor of Al- Furqan, a respectable religious journal in Lucknow" [15]. This is not a trivial mention. It's a statement that he was a viable candidate for high office and editor of a respectable religious journal. Frankly, I think it is unwise to take your statements that something is unsourceable on good faith alone, as we normally do take such statements to avoid duplicating each others' work. At this point, I think that other people need to check everything you say you can find no sources, or non non-trivial sources, and I hope to have time after coping with your current group of mostly reckless nominations to recheck every deleted article where the deletion relied upon your statement that you could not find sources. If you were merely careless, I retract what I said about reckless, for anyone can make errors--and I expect you to show it as I would in a similar case, by withdrawing the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG -- Good work. Apparently we both missed that in our first searches. As did each of the other editors here. I routinely as my general practice check both gnews and gbooks (at a minimum).

You can see by my first post, below the nomintation but on the same date in response to the first comment, why we had a difference in search results, however. I (as you can tell from that post, above) was searching for him under the spelling "Manzoor Nu'mani". Which, as our friend PWilkinson indicated (later) is the subject's more common English transliterated name. My gbooks search would have yielded this result. A mere 5 snippet views, and 2 previews, insufficient to base a notability determination on IMHO. I'm still not sure how I came to his "more common" transliterated name, rather than the better one and one in the article name which you used which yielded a bevy of results. But it appears that all of the editors in this string must have done the same until you used the better name (assuming they all did searches). I would likely also have searched using all three names, since the article when it refers to him refers to him as "Maulana". If you run that search, you also find the results are meager -- under both spellings of his name -- yielding only 3 hits, which seem insufficient as well. In any event, if you look at my initial posting, and that of PWilkinson as well, you will understand how such a mistake can be made. I apologize -- but hope you can see how it was made, and that the search used was transparent to others in the first place.

One last point -- I'm not sure I agree that we have trouble sourcing Indian scholars of hadith in the least. If you're not impressed by our Category:Indian Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam, and the sources therein, you need only look at all the sources you found on this scholar when you (to your credit) spelled his name correctly, which I had not done. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Per DGG's findings, using the better spelling of the scholar's name -- per the above.Bold text

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. causa sui (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Horne (driver)

[edit]

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

Non-notable racing driver; doesn't seem to have advanced beyond Formula Ford. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Racing is non-notable events does not create notability. Not finding significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Scottdrink (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limkokwing Academy of Creativity and Innovation

[edit]

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

While the university that this is a member of may well be notable, this academy appears to lack indicia of notability such as substantial coverage in independent RSs. The vast majority of the article is unreferenced. Tagged as an orphan for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 18 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:52, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:53, 31 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 redirect to Solar Cookers International. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Cookers World Network

[edit]

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

There is no indication that this article meets the criteria for inclusion. As for now, it is not referenced by any independent sources, and it doesn't seem there is significant coverage by independent sources Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Solar Cookers International, the notable parent organization. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a decent plan, and would have my support too actually. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:50, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:42, 31 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 17:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Solar Cookers International Agreed that it should point to the parent organization. --Pmedema (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Tuccille

[edit]

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

The BLP starts by telling us Tuccille is best known for a column on Examiner.com. Since Examiner.com is a blacklisted site because of a lack of reliability, that's not a good start. Notability is barely even asserted. The claim is that Tuccille writes for Examiner, has a (non-notable) blog, has been quoted a few times by notable outlets and was a guest once on a notable show. What is lacking is any significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Would fall under WP:CREATIVE and can't see him passing that either. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Tuccille stopped writing his "notable" column at Examiner in June 2010 because it wasn't making enough money. Must not have been too popular. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Could find no coverage of his writings or his blog. Somebody by the same name, possibly the same subject, was a third-party candidate for governor of New York in 1974 [16], but that doesn't amount to notability either. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Oops, I did this a day early as it was linked from another AFD. Since this is a borderline WP:SNOW case I'll leave it closed unless there are some good faith objections. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gayathri (2013 film)

[edit]

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

Officially listing page for deletion. No filming has yet taken place and there's absolutely zero coverage of this film, so this does not pass WP:NFF for future films. Saying that it will become notable is WP:CRYSTAL. This page appears to have been previously speedied under G11 on the 30th, but re-created by the same user on the 31st. I'm formally listing this for deletion in case it gets readded before it passes notability guidelines, it can be speedied under G4.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with enthusiasm. Unverifiability hints strongly of WP:HOAX and along with similar film article Dead Morning, as well as the director article Sridhar Teegala, and the ones for Sara Entertainment Pvt Ltd and Wasim Akram (Producer) all created by single purpose User:Wasirg all seem to be set to promote the non-notable producer, his film company, and his films. None have verifiability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and I can't find any. "Filming will commence in early 2013" means it fails WP:NFF, which says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no links for reference/verification. I don't find any relevant results at Google either. Other articles like Dead Morning, Sameena Kausar, Sara Entertainment Pvt Ltd and Sridhar Teegala are also created by User:Wasirg (original author) which are either unsourced BLP, link to Facebook or don't have any references at all. Considering the lack of reference, it could be a hoax. trunks_ishida (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Morning

[edit]

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

The film has yet to get a wide release and the article lacks any and all sources. I've searched for sources and couldn't find anything that wasn't put out by the company. I had previously listed this for speedy deletion under G11 and it looks like it had been deleted on the 30th, only to be recreated by User:Wasirg on the 31st, who also appears to be Wasim Akram, which is also up for deletion along with a listing for his company. Since G4 pretty much only applies to deletion discussions and not speedies, I'm putting this up for official AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with enthusiasm. Unverifiability hints strongly of WP:HOAX and along with similar film article Gayathri (2013 film) , as well as the director article Sridhar Teegala, and the ones for Sara Entertainment Pvt Ltd and Wasim Akram (Producer) all created by single purpose User:Wasirg all seem to be set to promote the non-notable producer, his film company, and his films. None have verifiability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. No RS. Could be hoax. My hunch is that this is article is the the work of a media/film studies student. If that is the case, good luck to him/her in future ventures, but this article has to go. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. either a hoax or promotional spam--Sodabottle (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The film is unreleased and has not been the subject of substantial coverage. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, no real coverage -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provides no links for reference/verification. I don't find any relevant results at Google either. Other articles like Gayathri 2013, Sameena Kausar, Sara Entertainment Pvt Ltd and Sridhar Teegala are also created by User:Wasirg (original author) which are either unsourced BLP, link to Facebook or don't have any references at all. Considering the lack of reference, it could be a hoax. trunks_ishida (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This might be able to be closed per WP:SNOW, I think.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment Same Here. Maybe a group nomination would have saved us much trouble... trunks_ishida (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wish I could have, but most of these were speedy deleted, then instantly added back by the initial editor, so not all of the articles were on the wiki at the same time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asrama cilimus indah

[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this boarding house/dormitory. Katherine (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage and the only source in the article is Blogspot. SL93 (talk) 20:35, 31 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. causa sui (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D. H. Joglekar

[edit]

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

Zero refs. Lacks substantial rs coverage. Created by an spa who bears the same surname. Tagged for lack of refs for well over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any reliable source that proves substantive coverage. Hekerui (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 31 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. little participation, but I too can find zero evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passion of Art Cultural Society

[edit]

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

Zero refs. Lacks substantial rs coverage. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 31 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idiot dudes

[edit]

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

Non-notable book. The author and user who created the article share the same name, and the references provided all point to websites where you can buy the book, rather than critical and independent reviews of it, and a blog. In the absence of any independent verification notability is in question. role^player 10:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of notability. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless there's sources in a different language, I wasn't able to find anything to show that this book passes WP:NBOOK. Other than one or two blog reviews, the rest of the hits refer back to things put out by the author, sites that can't be used to prove notability (goodreads, etc), or sites where you can purchase the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Stop, Keep Going On

[edit]

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

Lacks substantial rs coverage. I would have suggested a merge, but for the fact that it is completely unreferenced and lacks such coverage. Tagged for notability well over 2 years ago. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Non-notable.--JayJasper (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ziza Massika

[edit]

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

Lacks substantial rs coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for nearly 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm tempted to tag this for speedy deletion as uncomprehensible. I'm guessing this was machine translated? The article can't even make up its mind whether the subject is male or female... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete poorly written article on non-notable person. Vincelord (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject appears to lack "signficant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore likely non-notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Meyer

[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Hardly notable per WP:ATHLETE. bender235 (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 16 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless it can be shown that the article is a hoax. Strong claims of notability are made, and if true, reliable sources should be readily available in Portugese, which I don't read. The article needs references and a lot of work, but the person seems notable based on her world records. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an English language reference from Scuba Diving Magazine to the article, and many other references are available in Portugese. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 25 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guinness World Record Holder is notable. Significant coverage in reliable third party sources has been found. Scottdrink (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ^talk 14:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lincolnwood Jewish Congregation

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG <--and falls under WP:BLP1E-->. The only available sources mention the congregation for a one time incident. TM 16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my mention of BLP1E. Not sure what I was thinking there. Still, it is--TM 19:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is BLP germane to this subject?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep due to defective deletion rationale. An attack on a synagogue has no WP:BLP1E implications. No living person is mentioned or even alluded to. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1 event refers to biography articles. It is not a rule against all articles about things that become notable for one event. We even have articles on single events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The event in question is not about the congregation per se, but the vandalism done to it during the Gaza War. There is still the issue of GNG.--TM 15:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antisemitic incidents during the Gaza War#United States per WP:NOT#NEWS: There has been no assertion or evidence of independent notability. WP:BLP1E may only be for biographies, but its more general concepts of WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:AVOIDSPLIT are for everything. Unfortunately, being subjected to highly offensive vandalism is not an uncommon event, as the redirect target already shows. --Closeapple (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Closeapple. Other than the vandalism, I have been unable to find anything more than routine directory listings for this synagogue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:54, 25 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Under grounds of Not News. Non-notable institution other than for a single incident by nationalist asswipes. Carrite (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT and no evidence of enduring notability. I considered a redirect, but I think that codifies that the only notable thing about this congregation is that they were once targeted by anti-semites.--Kubigula (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not keen on a redirect; among other reasons, I'm unclear what makes Antisemitic incidents during the Gaza War any more notable, or any less of an indiscriminate list, than anti-semitic incidents at any other time, during Arab-Israeli conflicts or otherwise. Bored teenage punks throwing bricks through windows are a dime a thousand. Non-notable even by non-notable standards of these purely local incidents. (I admit I'm scratching my heads at the Keep voters who based their opposition on the deletion ground they didn't like while ignoring the perfectly valid one.) Ravenswing 10:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, absence of significant in-depth coverage fulfilling WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable synagogue. This compares unfavorably to some others that have been kept; see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation (2nd nomination). Having been attacked by anti-Semites is only one reason for notability. See also User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_historic_churches. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bogna Koreng

[edit]

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

Non-notable television presenter. Tagged since April, for lack of notability and paucity of refs. Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Third place in a insiders festival is the only minuscule claim to notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:10, 23 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:29, 23 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E and the event isn't itself significant enough for an article. causa sui (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. No quorum here. causa sui (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Kurowski

[edit]

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

This musician/singer appears to be non-notable -- even if all claims in the article were backed by RS refs. Tagged for notability since October 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would probably meet ANYBIO if de:Das Hungertuch (Künstlerpreis) is notable - she apparently won it this year. However, I'm not convinced that it is. PWilkinson (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I originally flagged this for Notability over a year ago, and AfD is a logical consequence of that. However I'm having mixed feelings about this one: with the Hungertuch prize and her recent and forthcoming books there is a bit more verifiable evidence around. AllyD (talk) 11:24, 22 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:41, 23 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:54, 31 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. Borderline A7 causa sui (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Kufa

[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability for this bio, and even on its face the person does not appear to be notable (even if there were RS support for all claims). Tagged for notability over three years ago. Epeefleche (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as totally non-notable. Seems like a résumé of a run-of-the-mill businessman. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:27, 23 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:09, 23 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 31 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (gossip) 17:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush substance abuse controversy

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This most certainly violates WP:BLP. Much of the article reads as a tabloid, with various items being sourced to allegations published in reliable sources and in fringe books. One section was entirely unsourced when I discovered the article, and it was unsourced for at least a year. While President Bush has admitted that he is a recovering alcoholic, this most certainly does not deserve its own separate article just to cover the events that led up to his decision to give up alcohol. —Ryulong (竜龙) 09:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this page runs contrary to the spirit of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place for tabloid journalism and scandal mongering. Articles and content about living people are expected to meet higher standards, as they may be construed as libelous. This page does not have encyclopedic value and it only contains speculations and allegations of alcohol abuse, the substance of which has been captured in the biography page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This article only contains speculation and no real source for alcoholism. Maybe some words could be added to the Bush article but this issue is not notable enough for an own one. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some people seem to want to adopt a new version of BLP that would say: "When a politician or other controversial figure is criticized, and the criticism receives significant media coverage, Wikipedia is nevertheless not allowed to include any mention of the criticism, even a factual report of what is said and by whom, unless Wikipedia editors in their genius conclude that the criticism is well founded and backed by sources that would pass the WP:RS test." That's not our policy and most definitely should not be. Reliable sourcing here consists of documenting that the criticism has been made. If this is deleted, let's delete John Kerry military service controversy, which reports on criticisms that were directly contradicted by official records and by some of the critics' own prior statements. JamesMLane t c 15:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. benzband (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC):[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable controversy regarding an important historical figure. Edison (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - has everyone read the first nomination? (speedy keep as a disruptive nomination) ~ benzband (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there was a substance abuse controversy when it was revealed in the 2000 election campaign that he had been convicted of DUI. The article is well sourced and would have undue weight if fully merged into his main biography. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - deletion would amount to a wholesale change in WP policy. The article is well-sourced with reliable sources, and the controversy received significant media coverage -- tabloid or no -- as well it should have given that it concerned an individual who was campaigning for and became the President of the U.S. Jhw57 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic regarding a highly prominent individual that received significant coverage in reliable sources, extensively & reliably sourced.--JayJasper (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. causa sui (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cowan Bell

[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Primary claim to notability is being a founding member of a fraternity. That, plus being Civil War veteran and being a teacher at aren't enough for notability. GrapedApe (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 16 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 23 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ (see below) I have cleaned up the article, which was unreferenced and full of flowery gush. It is now Wikified and referenced. As nominator said, subject's primary claims to notability are as a founder of a major national fraternity, and as a civil war veteran. I note that only three of the seven founders have articles here, so maybe that's not enough for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And, how does that remedy the lack of sources to establish notability? For the record, of the other 2, one was a Congressman and the other was a Civil War General, both notable in ways separate from any fraternity founding.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily arguing for notability at this point. I wasn't trying for a full-on rescue, I just wanted to get rid of the gag-inducing prose of the original article. Later today I will follow David Eppstein's suggestion to see if the colleges he was president of might make him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that all of the seven of the fraternity's founders used to have articles, but four of the seven were deleted (some quite recently) via prod or afd. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are probably the best argument for notability, but they are such small institutions that I don't think it engenders notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a little research I'm inclined to agree. These were tiny colleges; their president seems no more notable than a high school principal or headmaster. Changing to weak delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequately sourced, and the schools he headed save this from being a WP:BIO1E case. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I added several more sources that, I think, make it clear he passes WP:GNG. As well as the fraternity founding, we now have a source unrelated to any fraternity or academic work that speaks in nontrivial detail of his civil war service. And note that WP:GNG is not about editors' opinions of the significance of the subject's accomplishments; it's about whether they have been noted in sufficient detail by sufficiently many reliable sources. I believe that Bell has been so noted. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving my citations, and for adding the military dispatch letter that mentions him in connection with his civil war service. I'm afraid I am still at "weak delete". This does make two different sources of information about him, but the civil war source seems rather thin. Despite his high rank and (according to his fraternity brothers) heroic service, I could not find any mention of him in published Civil War books [17] [18] - and there are so many of those that you'd think one of them would have mentioned him. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially all sources are linked to the fraternity, and much of the article seems to a slightly edited / suspiciously similar version of [[19]]. I think he still would be considered 'one event' as the other roles seem to be minor govt administration positions (from a world perspective). Information about him would be best included in the fraternity's article. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Magazine

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This school magazine lacks substantial rs refs. Tagged for notability for well over a year, and for lack of refs since March. Deletion seems appropriate, though if there were any appropriate rs-supported material it could be merged/redirected to the university. Salt may be in order, as this was already deleted per an afd discussion once before. Epeefleche (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as non-notable publication with no reliable sources. --Bob Re-born (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Serious NPOV issues as well.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability shown since first AfD. SL93 (talk) 20:56, 31 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 on author's request. —Dark 09:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Space Coast Office of Tourism

[edit]

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

Non-notable tourism board for a region of Florida. The region itself is noteworthy (Space Coast). But this particular aspect of the local government is not. —Ryulong (竜龙) 09:23, 31 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. WP:CSD#A7 causa sui (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Grace

[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography with notability issues. Merge and redirect to Poison the Well (band) if references can be found. Zlqchn (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 15 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:30, 23 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Poison the Well (band). Subject does not appear to be notable independent of the group; per WP:BAND, a redirect is appropriate. Gongshow ^Talk 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article was a direct recreation of Artel Jarod Walker. Deleted under G4 and salted.. Camw (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artel Walker

[edit]

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

Appears to be basically a recreation of the article deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artel Jarod Walker, at least as well as I can tell from the deletion discussion (I don't have access to the deleted version of that page to verify.) If so, would qualify under Speedy criteria G4. Nat Gertler (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leanid Marakou

[edit]

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

Non-notable. Tagged 3 years ago. Epeefleche (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Marakou himself suggests search for "Леанід Маракоў" and "Леонид Моряков".

That finds LІTARATURNAYA BELARUS, guess the language, and many other documents. Searching in English, found:

document 11459-4.pdf Pazniak Marakou Winners Francishak Alakhnovich Prize (search for this string)
VIASNA human rights center 27 July 2007
Charter97.org
Podcast
BelarusDigest blog, could be useful for info
Keep If we think that Charter97 and the Prize establish Notability then we should keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:39, 15 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to be pulled from the Russian Wikipedia. It's poorly sourced there as well. That said, a simple Google search for the exact phrase "Леонид Моряков" returns over 17,000 results, which is a metric that doesn't impress some people at AfD. Regardless, one can no doubt carve a few reliable sources snowcones from an iceberg that big. Fairly obviously a leading scholar in the field of victims of state terror during the Stalin Period. "Leanid Marakou" is an abysmal transliteration of "Леонид Моряков," it should be Leonid Moriakov (LoC system) or Leonid Moryakov (British/Wikipedia system). Start looking there. Definitely sufficient sources out there, an important scholar, by all indications. Carrite (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's THE RUSSIAN WP ARTICLE, by the way... Carrite (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~, and rename~~ - it's clear there is a depth of reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject's name is "Леанід Маракоў", of which "Leanid Marakou" is an accurate transliteration. "Leonid Moriakov" or "Leonid Moryakov" would be a transliteration of a translation of his name. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 23 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Fix the problem pertains here, rather than deletion, per the research above undertaken by Wikipedia editors. This nomination is very generic, and as such, doesn't state why the topic is perceived by the nominator as "Non-notable". An ambiguous nomination that appears to be based upon a tag in an article, unless I am mistaken, and the nominator actually followed procedure per WP:BEFORE in good faith to check for sources before nominating this article for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did such a search. Zero gnews hits. Zero rs gbooks hits. Did not see substantial rs coverage ... and it is very rare to not see even non-rs gnews coverage of notable articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject gets 48 hits from Google News. Even if you don't read Cyrillic, the Belarusian and Russian spellings of the name were available in the article to enable that to be checked. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 31 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. causa sui (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tui (intellectual)

[edit]

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

This article is about a word that seems to have been mainly used by one person. That does not seem to be very notable. Maybe the information could be included in the article on the person. BigJim707 (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though link with Brecht is important, this is merely a dicdef for a made-up word in German. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (or a German dictionary, or a dictionary of neologisms. Delete, and add to Brecht if necessary and/or shift to Wiktionary. Emeraude (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources make it clear this term has been used and discussed by people other than Brecht himself, and this article is not merely a dicdef. (Just because an article's title is a word, that doesn't mean the article is a dicdef.) Angr (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly a discussion of a philosophical position and not merely a dictionary definition. Furthermore, Google scholar searches for {Tui Brecht} or {Tui Adorno} find many dozens of relevant papers by multiple scholars (though I admit to having merely read the Google excerpts, not the papers themselves). Cnilep (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But if you haven't read them, how are you able to say that this "clearly a discussion of a philosophical position"? Brecht, though something of a thinker, was primarily a dramatist and is not known as a leading philosopher. Emeraude (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is, on its face, more than a definition. Notability is a separate issue; the Google hits appear to suggest notability, but without having read them, I take them with the due grain of salt. Cnilep (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bertolt Brecht. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bertolt Brecht as per User:Robertgreer. Topic is inherently linked to Brecht and the article does not establish its use or acceptance at large. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:29, 30 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Turandot (Brecht). I had a look for sources, and it does look like this term is only discussed in relation to Brecht. I think this deserves a mention in the main Bertolt Brecht article and a slightly longer treatment in Turandot (Brecht), so I prefer the latter for the redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, unless content is added that clearly shows that the term has been discussed outside the context of Brecht's work. Sandstein 20:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an article about a word. This name for a concept, and the philosophical position it represents and helps to concentrate, that Bertolt Brecht used to talk about early 20th century politics and culture leading up to WWII is an important part of Western thought. This article is significantly more useful and important to a liberal arts student than most of the articles on English Wikipedia. It further establishes the importance of this article that no other single word, and no other English Wikipedia article, exists for precisely this phenomenon: the cowardly, opportunistic pseudo-intellectual (or can someone point us to such an article?). Keep this article on English Wikipedia in order to inform and intrigue all students of politics and culture. — Keith Cascio (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the references are clearly substantially devoted to the subject for they mention it in the very title. In particular, [20] says in the abstract that it discusses the concept with regard to a number of Brecht's works, not just his Turandot. It's time we started taking the humanities as thoroughly as other subjects. I have no objection to our extremely detailed coverage of geography and popular culture--indeed I have strongly supported it in hundreds of discussions here--but there are other things in the world worth attention also. DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure why this needs to be deleted. It seems clear by the references on the page and those cited here that this is an established concept within the context of Brecht's work that relates to the broader range of Continental Philosophy and Critical Theory via specific links to Theodor Adorno. Also, as others have noted above this is a concept for which an English equivalent does not exist. Edunoramus (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was send back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/nbkrist. Sandstein 20:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nbkrist

[edit]

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

Rubinkumar (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there a rationale for deletion? • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be failure to meet WP:N. I'll poke him. For what it's worth, he appears to be a new editor who's blind diving into NPP. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A version of the article was previously at AfC where the good advice related to the need for reliable third-party sources - which is certainly the case in this version. Best outcome would be return to and completion of AfC process? AllyD (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I sure as hell wouldn't complain about that, myself. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:50, 21 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:06, 31 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evil clown

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is unreferenced and apparently a fringe theory based on a single work. It has been nothing but a magnet for uncited trivia and cruft. May fail notability guidelines.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any worthwhile, verifiable content to Coulrophobia * eldamorie (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets ample coverage in the news and books. Restore what it was before over 90% of the article was gutted after it ended in keep during its first nomination last year. Rename it List of evil clowns in popular culture, or make a separate article for that.
World art: the magazine of contemporary visual arts, 1995 - Snippet view

Thus, the widespread fear and loathing of clowns, crystallized in the ubiquitous image of the Evil Clown, ... The Evil Clown bodies forth the black comedy of a society in which the giddily amoral tubeoisie shouts "Go, Juice, go! ...]

[21] Villains and Villainy: Embodiments of Evil in Literature, Popular Culture, Page 74

Anna Fahraeus, Dikmen Yakalı-Çamoğlu - 2011 - 225 pages - Preview

An evil clown is therefore free from not only from external societal constraints, but also from the internalized repression that allows us to function within society. The clown exists outside of our social order, but he is intimately... click the link to read more. Dream Focus 19:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Such an article would require quite a bit more than just Dery's discussion of the theme to establish notability in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is not without use in the media:

In addition to this usage, the term is also used at length beyond just the Dery book:

This article describes a man who is hired to be an evil clown.
This report republished in the Annual Survey of American Law about the dangers of online interactions and how one prominent individual was guised as an evil clown in a MUD. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are not sources that establish the notability of this idea - they are simply sources that briefly mention an evil clown somewhere. A reliable source for this actually discusses the idea. This is a fundamental idea in reliable sources - it needs to discuss the topic at length, not simply mention it in passing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit. User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me would be on a wikibreak. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the current content to coulrophobia, and also create List of evil clowns in popular culture from earlier revisions of article. -- The Anome (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a sufferer of coulrophobia, I'm going to give my input on this issue, coulrophobia is not a fear of evil clowns, it is a fear of clowns in general, to merge coulrophobia with Evil clown would give readers the impression that coulrophobia is a fear of evil clowns, which clearly coulrophobia is not, coulrophobia is not a fear of evil clowns, it is a fear of clowns in general. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this view. The concept of evil clown should not be confused with coulrophobia.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm convinced by Greg The Webmaster and Berean Hunter's arguments above -- changing my opinion back to keep. -- The Anome (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure what the problem is here. This is a hugely notable device used in many movies, TV shows, and books. It's one of the most well-known out there. How exactly is it a "fringe theory?" --Qwerty0 (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then get over there and add some sources and not trivia. During this article's existence, it has been a cruft magnet. This is no serious treatise on the "hugely notable device". Were it so then we wouldn't be here. Go look at the article history and see the crap I pulled out of it. As it reads now, there is the opinions of one author which constitutes the face value of fringe theory. If it is highly notable then you won't have any problems finding serious studies on the subject to expand the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:11, 28 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The importance of an article of an evil clown archetype in a literary and fictional context rather than coulrophobia (a psychological condition) is noteworthy; they are no more identical than arachnophobia is to spiders. However, more critical analyses than Mark Dery's are needed; are there no other critics who have written about the archetype of an evil clown? And can a history of depictions be found? Benjitheijneb (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any who delete this page will be cursed by the Evil clown. Clown has spoken. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article does still suffer from the same issues that created the need for the first AFD, it reads like an essay and is based too much in personal interpretation and not enough in reliable sources. There may be some synthesis going on here. Not the worst example of synthesis but this article needs some rewriting. RadioFan (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isam Khalil

[edit]

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

Article about a boxer who lacks significant coverage and fails to meet the notability criteria at WP:NSPORTS. Jakejr (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He does have a profile on BoxRec, but interestingly enough, he has no ranking in his division either in-country or world, as many of his opponents do for example. Other independent sources are more or less nonexistent. Therefore, given the supposed length of his career (11 years), the relatively few fights in that time, and his lack of a ranking, it would seem to indicate that he was not and never has been a professional boxer and does not meet NSPORTS. MSJapan (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks good sources and the subject doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence he meets any notability criteria. He certainly fails WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. Papaursa (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies based in Westport, Connecticut

[edit]

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

Indiscriminate scope so fails NOT Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't see how a list of this nature is notable. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't want to remove the list of companies in every article in CT (ie: Milford,_Connecticut#Economy), and this is a standard practice (ie: List_of_companies_in_Seattle or List of companies in Houston. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seattle and Houston are major American cities and are thus home to many more enterprises. I don't think that a standalone article is necessary for a smaller town like Westport (2010 population, 26,391). Imagine if every town in Connecticut—or even in the United States—had its own "List of companies in ..." article without some type of wider encyclopedic justification. I think instead that anything particularly noteworthy can be made into a section on Westport's article, as is done to a degree in the Milford article and others. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi RK. I don't disagree of course that Westport isn't Houston. However, it's not Lost City, West Virginia either. IMO, there are CT towns and cities that should follow this practice. Greenwich, New Haven, Hartford... and as for Westport, it has at least one Fortune 500 company, which puts it ahead of Buffalo, New York. Best Markvs88 (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I view whether or not this is worth separating from List of Connecticut companies or Westport, Connecticut#Economy and industry as chiefly an editing decision, not one that should be resolved by AFD. So discussion over whether Westport is significant enough, or whether there are enough Westport notable companies, should be just occurring on a talk page, not here. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question for nominator (i.e., "keep" if not answered satisfactorily): Can you explain how this list has an indiscriminate scope? Whether a company is based in a defined locale is clearly discriminate. And it's completely run-of-the-mill practice to limit lists of companies however subdivided to companies that are notable (as we do with lists of people, lists of films, lists of books, etc.). postdlf (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It needs some formatting but appears to me a useful article of which there are many others such as this one: [[25]] but I suggest taking the word "based" out of the title.--LarEvee (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion about keeping or deleting, but I'd oppose removing "based" from the title — without it, we could justifiably include Wal-Mart, Subway, and every other national chain if they have locations in this town. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that too, but it looks like it's standard for such lists to omit that from the title even though being based there is part of the criteria. I'm a bit surprised that doesn't make them harder to maintain for exactly the reason you raise regarding any chains operating there. Probably better to add "based in" to the other lists than to omit it from this one. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A discriminate list, with an organized topical focus. Useful to include on Wikipedia. 71.237.197.56 (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A useful list as is the likes of other similar lists eg List of companies based in the Harrisburg area WestportWiki (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DeleteDeleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) under CSD A10. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D Code

[edit]

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

Subsitution ciphers are certainly notable, but this single use of one is not. Katherine (talk) 07:26, 31 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Smith (boxer)

[edit]

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

The only source mentions that a Harry Smith is scheduled to participate in an upcoming fight. Certainly there's no indication of being South African champion or anything that would qualify as notable under WP:NSPORTS. Jakejr (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim to notability is being South African champion and that is unsourced. Even if true, he would fail the WP:NSPORTS criteria for boxing. The lack of sources seals the deal. Astudent0 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source mentions a South African fighter by that name, but gives no indication he's a champion of anything and gives no other information about him. As Astudent0 said, even being South African champion wouldn't meet the notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Donnabalancia invoked WP:CSD#G7

The Florida Law Journal

[edit]

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

The article does not adequately prove that the subject is notable, and the article was authored by Donnabalancia (talk · contribs) who owns/runs the journal. "The Florida Law Journal" brings back around 80 Google results, none of which show that it is notable as far as I can tell. —Ryulong (竜龙) 07:16, 31 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait list

[edit]

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

Dicdef. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not a single word dictionary term but a two-word concept relevant to college admissions. It is sometimes misunderstood -- such that newspaper reports about college admissions typically describe what is meant by the term wait list in their discussions, although it seems somewhat obvious as a term overall. As a topic of discussion, it is notable in the sense that college applicants who find themselves waitlisted want to know more about this topic -- what are their chances of admission at a later time? can they do anything to improve their chances? And it is a notable topic for college enrollment planning as well, since many colleges use their wait-list as a kind of hedge against a phenomenon known as "summer melt" (students who had committed to enroll in the fall, but who melted away over the summer, forfeiting their deposit, perhaps because of financial considerations, lack of interest, or acceptances from the wait-list at upstream schools.) In short: it's an important topic in college admissions in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into College admissions in the United States. Useful information perhaps, but seems to me an odd contender for a stand-alone article. Outside the US, the term wait list or waiting list is used much more broadly than just enrolments in tertiary education. Katherine (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it looks fine to me. It meets every requirement of WP:GNG. It is very well written. Diddef, not at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it denotes important concepts in many fields. There are plenty of situations besides college admissions in which wait lists are significant. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Much more elaborate than a dictionary definition. Sourced. Propose renaming to: Wait list (college admissions). Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree about changing article name to Wait list (college admissions) as proposed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Netflix

[edit]

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

Rather unobvious target for a separate list. Its clearly as a case of NOT#INDESCRIMINATE and not obviously separately notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Judging from this and your other AFD nom on this page, I'm beginning to think you don't know what "indiscriminate" means, because this is clearly a list for programming originating on Netflix just as any other list included in Category:Lists of television series by network is (i.e., what we would call "discriminate criteria"). So I'm completely puzzled by this nomination, which just seems confused about the subject matter. And about policy. This could be merged to Netflix#Original programming, but size concerns would appear to counsel otherwise. I think the only real issue with this is whether it uses the best terminology in its title (obviously we're having trouble shifting the broadcast television series paradigm to online-only streaming content), but that's a matter for normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A useful, discriminate list, and a reasonable content fork. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, the presence of other articles about judokas who came 7th in European championships does not indicate a consensus that overrides WP:ATHLETE. JohnCD (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despina Panayiotou

[edit]

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria established at WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. The sources are all routine sports results reporting. I don't think winning a Small States of Europe championship (open to 8 countries with populations under 1 million) in a field of 5 establishes notability. Population wise, that's less than being a New York city champion and I certainly don't think that proves notability. I also don't think finishing tied for 7th place at the European Judo championships (where she got 2 byes and won 1 bout out of 3) is enough for notability. Jakejr (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:MANOTE is an essay, and a very poor one at that - "Olympic medallist" is not an appropriate standard since Wikipedia:Notability (sports) has Olympic participation as automatically implying notability. St Anselm (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree on Olympic participation as notable, but not on European championship participation. Jakejr (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other participants, but not medallists, at European championship level include Zoltán Pálkovács, Renato Morais, Evghenii Rusu, Sašo Jereb, Magdalena Kozioł, Anton Novik, Evgeny Kudyakov, Henri Schoeman, David Papaux, Grigol Mamrikishvili, Belkız Zehra Kaya and Sandra Borderieux. St Anselm (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're welcome to put those people up for AfD if you want. Jakejr (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merely participating at a European championship is not enough to show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The very long list (no doubt many more than the ones I found in just a few minutes) of similar articles goes beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It indicates a consensus to include articles of European championship competitors, WP:ATHLETE notwithstanding. St Anselm (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you mention all seem to be one line in the form:_______ is a judoka from _______. The fact that they exist doesn't indicate a consensus, it just shows no one has gone through each article. I've seen editors create 40 or more of these articles in a few hours. Given the trouble to remove them via AfD, it's not surprising most of them still exist. Papaursa (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning one match at a single tournament is not sufficient to show notability. Participating at a European championship doesn't meet any notability criteria I can find. The only sources are simply reporting the results and thus fall under WP:ROUTINE. Papaursa (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun Sanjeev

[edit]

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

Looks like a classical WP:BLP1E. As its a child I believe this needs to be deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. He won an online quiz contest about Indian mythology and history. Maybe someone can recruit him as a Wikipedia editor, but he doesn't meet our notability standards for a biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 31 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Sun

[edit]

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

This article has been twice deleted already and the article creator persists in remove the PRODs. To me, this appears to be just one of many small town bands with no particular notability. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to pass WP:BAND —Dark 07:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per below. Appears to have significant coverage. —Dark 23:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, however, this article should be further developed and should have been initially submitted as an Article for creation. I believe the article meets WP:BAND (notability criteria for musicians and ensembles) because the artist has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works that have appeared in reliable sources, independent from the musician himself, including the Stockton Record. Also, the artist has received non-trivial and verifiable coverage in independent, reliable sources of being featured in an international concert tour Big Day Out, in the year 2000. The artist has released multiple albums and is a prominent representative of his particular genre of music in various different cities, which is demonstrated by the substantial amount of press coverage in which he has received, such as the Riverfront Times. I am not the article's creator, however, I contributed to the article in order to help establish notability for the article. Therebelking (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)User:Therebelking[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to pass WP:BAND guidelines Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 15:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Keep - The article should be initially submitted as an Article for creation. I think the article has reilable sources and the artist has released albums for this band. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 19:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it not pass WP:BAND? An editor directly above, Therebelking (talk · contribs), offered with explanation his/her opinion that Savage Sun passes WP:BAND. Your opinion isn't valid unless you rebut his/her statements. Goodvac (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for reconsidering your position. If you don't mind, I've added the text of your original comment to provide context for my comments. However, I note that Savage Sun is an artist, not a band. Goodvac (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but need to be developed in more detail. Savage Sun does seem to meet WP:BAND. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that I should have started this article as an Article for Creation and submitted it for review. However, I didn't realize that by saving the article, that i was making it public, as I am still learning how to create pages and make contributions. My intention was to expand the article prior to making it public and had barely begun to do this when I accidentally made it public, at which time, it was marked as being considered for deletion. Rkhan01bj (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)rkhan01bj[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. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of the Mariner

[edit]

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

Doesn't look notable. Sources are the publisher's website and the author's blog. Nothing in google news and google is just listings from where you can buy it. Overall, its not looking like this is something that meets our inclusion standard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable ebook. SL93 (talk) 20:54, 31 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. Despite substantial concerns about essay-like tone, original research and Christian POV, there is a clear consensus that this is an encyclopedic subject and that the article should be kept in the hope of improvement. JohnCD (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic peace traditions

[edit]

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

I'm sure it's very interesting, but it's an essay with very few reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is written in essay tone. It also combines a large number of trends, that it admits are not really related. It probably represents a violation of policy on original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's always sad when "essay" is mis-used to mean "written to a much higher standard than we are used to" and "original research" to mean "needs a bit of ordinary editing for conformance to our house style rather than the scholarly house style that the author is clearly used to". Wikipedia isn't aimed solely at the pocket dictionary crowd, you know. People: Catholic Peace Traditions is an article (Musto 2010, pp. 244–246) harv error: no target: CITEREFMusto2010 (help) in The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace and is thus by definition encyclopaedic, even if one discounts all of the books in the Further Reading section of this article, Professor Anne Klejment at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota (Klejment 1996) harv error: no target: CITEREFKlejment1996 (help), Associate Professor Patricia F. McNeal at Indiana University (McNeal 1978) harv error: no target: CITEREFMcNeal1978 (help), Professor Thomas A. Shannon at Worcester Polytechnical Institute and Assistant Professor Thomas Massaro at Weston Jesuit School of Theology (Massaro & Shannon 2003) harv error: no target: CITEREFMassaroShannon2003 (help), the "pacifism" entry in Flinn's and Melton's Encyclopaedia of Catholicism that cites Musto's work (Flinn & Melton 2007) harv error: no target: CITEREFFlinnMelton2007 (help), and many others (such as Windley-Daoust et al. 2008 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWindley-DaoustKilmartinNavarroHodapp2008 (help)) writing about Catholicism in the field of peace studies over the years.
Interestingly, it appears that the person who wrote that encyclopaedia article for Oxford, Ronald G. Musto, is the same rgmusto (talk · contribs) who wrote this encyclopaedia article. It's saddening to see the different receptions that subject experts get from the professional editors of Oxford University Press and from the editors at Wikipedia. When an article is written to the scholarly standard that one finds in subject-specific encyclopaedias, people, you don't reach for AFD. You try to make the other articles better, to bring Wikipedia up to the standards of other encyclopaedias, and you help the experts to follow our house style. Uncle G (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Musto, Ronald G (2010). "Catholic Peace Traditions.". In Young, Nigel J. (ed.). The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace. Vol. 1. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
- Flinn, Frank K.; Melton, J. Gordon (2007). "pacifism". Encyclopedia of Catholicism. Infobase Publishing. pp. 491–492. ISBN 9780816054558.
- Klejment, Anne (1996). Roberts, Nancy L. (ed.). American Catholic pacifism: the influence of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780275947842.
- McNeal, Patricia F. (1978). The American Catholic peace movement, 1928–1972. Classic Quilt Series. Arno Press.
- Massaro, Thomas; Shannon, Thomas Anthony (2003). Catholic perspectives on peace and war. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780742531765.
- Windley-Daoust, Jerry; Kilmartin, Lorraine; Navarro, Christine Schmertz; Hodapp, Kathleen Crawford; Wilt, Michael (2008). Living Justice and Peace: Catholic Social Teaching in Practice (2nd ed.). Saint Mary's Press. ISBN 9780884899853.
Comment: why are people using the Xfd process for legitimate topics that need cleanup? This should not have been nominated for deletion. It requires cleanup and a rewrite. Viriditas (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced at it and Viriditas seems to have a good point. If any of the material is challengeable or unverifiable, then tag it with ((citation needed)). The tagging editor should make an attempt to find a reliable source. If any of the wording is not appropriate, edit it. Deletion of the whole article in this case seems to be a lazy, slash and burn approach to editing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy - to anyone prepared to do the amount of work that would require it to be policy compliant. I also have doubts as to the specific subjects notability and see current issues as regards "no original research" - feel free to improve in your user-space or within the Catholic wikiproject space. Youreallycan (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you identified specific sentences or parts of the article for improvement on the article's talk page. Anything would be helpful; it doesn't have to be comprehensive. BTW I just rewrote the first sentence[26] and I would recommend that others here also contribute a little, either by making improvements or suggesting on the talk page specifically where improvement is needed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The talkpage has got about four comments in the last three years. Do you want me to stub the article back for you to a policy compliant version so that you can develop it within en wikipedia policies and guidelines? - Youreallycan (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~No, not really.~~ I guess your point is that there isn't enough interest in the article to expect it to improve, even if you made specific criticisms on the talk page. That may be. (See my comment below.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Userfying could be a good option. The creator could keep it in his user space until he has backed up all his claims with appropriate citations, just like everyone else has to do. It's the job of the person who adds content to find citations for it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Erm, well. It is an essay and original research. On the other hand, it's an essay by Ron Musto, an erudite person who isn't blowing smoke. I'm entirely confident that there is such a thing as the Catholic peace tradition, and that it's notable. See Just war theory for instance which is in some ways a subset of this, is essentially Catholic, and has an article and should. Since it's a notable subject, it should be kept and reformed as needed. (Granted, there are cases when an article on a notable subject is so bad that it'd be better to delete it and start over, but this isn't one of them -- it's a well-constructed article and probably mostly accurate.) Musto's article in the Peace Encycylopedia is probably a reasonably reliable source, so if they're generally similar (but not enough to be copyvio or plagiarism, I hope and assume!) then maybe a lot of the statements in this article can be ref'd to that one. Herostratus (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does Wikipedia really care if you're smart and if you're published in real life if you can't follow Wikipedia policy when writing for Wikipedia? The article has almost no citations. Those citations that it does have are to sources like this and this that don't tell us anything about the subject and that may not be reliable. Nothing ties all these disparate movements and individuals together but an editor's say-so, and that simply isn't good enough. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Uncle G is right: while much work is needed (the tone is more appropriate to a Catholic-specific publication, and there are indeed personal elements) the topic is clearly notable, and ample sources are available. Most problems could be addressed by extensive initial cutting (reminding the author that the cut material remains in history for him to draw on to rewrite and reintegrate into the article). EEng (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic in the history of religion and peace and conflict studies. We're here to cleanup and expand notable encyclopedia topics and to improve them to the best of our ability. We are not here to delete anything that requires maintenance and hard work. Xfd has its priorities wrong, and as I've said for years now, all responsibility for Xfd should be delegated to the WikiProjects as the active members of each project have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. For those who haven't noticed, the most strident deletionists are always found within the relevant WikiProject, not outside of it. While this might seem nonintuitive, we expect and hope that those with an understanding and knowledge of the topic will possess the intellectual honesty necessary to make the right decisions. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I struck out my previous message, which tended towards keep, because the editor Youreallycan got me thinking. Here are several reasons for deleting.

Even those who recommend keep, acknowledge that it needs work to comply with Wikipedia style and policy.
It is a large article which would require considerable work for compliance with Wikipedia style and policy, and I haven't seen much, if any, evidence of movement toward complying with Wikipedia style and policy in years, and there is no indication that there will be.
I have the impression that this article was essentially made by copying an article that appears elsewhere, which violates Wikipedia's prohibition against plagiarism. It does not matter if the editor who is copying the material is the author of the original article elsewhere, it would still be considered as Wikipedia plagiarizing work elsewhere. Articles in Wikipedia are meant to be summaries of the literature on a subject, not a place to reproduce that literature.

Please note that this is not a judgement on whether or not there is information in the source article that would be appropriate for Wikipedia. The point is that just the information that is useful for Wikipedia should be used and summarized, rather than essentially reproducing the whole source or many parts thereof. I think that the editor Youreallycan made a reasonable suggestion and offer which I think that everyone who wants to keep it should consider, "Do you want me to stub the article back for you to a policy compliant version so that you can develop it within en wikipedia policies and guidelines?" And Youreallycan also suggested, "feel free to improve in your user-space or within the Catholic wikiproject space." In other words, Youreallycan is suggesting that the article be copied and pasted elsewhere in Wikipedia for work as a draft, and Youreallycan would delete most of the article so that only the policy compliant part would remain, which would be just a stub. As parts of the draft become policy compliant, they can be incorporated back into the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't follow. First of all, articles are a work in progress. We have no deadline here. Except for articles that have reached GA or FA class, there is no such thing as a policy-compliant encyclopedia article. This kind of argument leads one to believe that anything less than GA should be sent to Xfd. That's ridiculous. I don't find User:Yourealycan's suggestion reasonable or persuasive, and we already have editors working on the problem in good faith and attempting to fix the article. That's what we do here. The appropriate venue for these types of concerns is a relevant noticeboard and/or WikiProject, not Xfd. Finally, there is no evidence of any plagiarism, so I don't recognize your concern. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, I noticed the work that you just did on the article. My impression is that this type of work is what this article needs and is good for Wikipedia.

Re plagiarism — I had that impression from the current style of the article and from Uncle G's message: " Catholic Peace Traditions is an article (Musto 2010, pp. 244–246) in The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace and is thus by definition encyclopaedic" and, "Interestingly, it appears that the person who wrote that encyclopaedia article for Oxford, Ronald G. Musto, is the same rgmusto (talk · contribs) who wrote this encyclopaedia article."

However, I have since got the idea that I could check for copy and paste by looking at the earliest versions of the article, and compare them to the present version. Based on this examination, and assuming there wasn't any copy and paste later, it looks like the present version is not mostly a copy and paste. Also, immediately after rgmusto's initial work, the article seemed to have a better Wkipedia style, with regard to some of the wording, than it has now.[27] (However, I would qualify my remarks by saying that I didn't spend a lot of time studying both versions.) Seems like a later editor or editors changed the style in the wrong direction.

Anyhow, I think you're doing the right thing. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean by a copy and paste? The comment that it's on the same subject and by the same author as a published piece makes me disappointingly suspicious that it's a massive copyright violation, and I can't check because the book isn't viewable on Google Books. (The author and article creator being one and the same does not make this problem go away.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Could you explain what you mean by a copy and paste?" — I meant copying from the Oxford article and putting that in Wikipedia. I was concerned like you of that possibility, but I didn't have any conclusive evidence for that. If you want to pursue that question, you might want to look up the source in a library.

However, the plot thickens regarding whether or not it is a copy and paste! In Cullen's message below, it was pointed out that the Musto article was published in 2010. I hadn't taken that into account for my previous examination. Looking at the history of the article,[28] the wording problems that I noticed came into the article with a major rewrite by Pacificus07, beginning with the edit of 15:04, 27 April 2009 and ending with the edit of 15:08, 10 May 2009. Here's the total diff. A message on the talk page of Pacificus07 suggests that he is Musto.[29] So Musto may have edited first under the account name Rgmusto, and then as Pacificus07. The version in Wikipedia that he put in back then may have been a draft for the article later published by Musto in 2010. So, following the idea in Cullen's comment below, even if Wikipedia contains identical passages as the 2010 Musto article in The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace, there may be no issue re copyright or plagiarism because those passages appeared in Wikipedia before they appeared in the Oxford article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, I hadn't noticed the dates. The problems I originally mentioned with the article are still present, though, and the best that should happen is userfication until it's reliably sourced. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than speculation that this might be some sort of copyvio I don't see how any of this qualifies the article for deletion under WP:DEL#REASON. EEng (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your edit summary, WP:DEL#REASON includes "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia," which contains a link to WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic per se existed only as the product of someone's OR, that would be anargument for deletion. It's clear from the references in the article that this is an established topic of scholarly discussion. Individual instances of OR in the article, if any, should be dealt with through editing. EEng (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable and ample reliable sources are available in the reading list in the article itself and as brought forth by Uncle G which can be used to improve the referencing of the article. A Wikipedia article originally written in 2006 cannot be plagiarism of an encyclopedia article published in 2010. The fact that an acclaimed four volume encyclopedia published in 2010 covers the topic is additional evidence that the topic is notable. We are fortunate to have the input of a world class expert here, and we can reference and improve his 2006 contribution rather than deleting it. The argument that no one will actually improve the article is belied by the fact that Viriditas has been working hard in recent days to improve the article, and that many other constructive edits have been made over the years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although any single edit is a benefit - the recent minor changes, mostly to headers, have done nothing to change the nominators deletion issues. I still feel it would benefit from userfication and a rewrite with some inline externals supporting the content. This wiki is not written by world class experts, we have WP:Policies and guidelines to consider and guide us, and to get this essay to abide by those guidelines imo close to a complete rewrite would be necessary. Youreallycan (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly needs a change in tone, and it needs inline refs, and probably additional points of view need to be brought in. But the structure and writing are excellent -- "close to a complete rewrite" is hyperbole. And anyway "needs a complete rewrite" -- even if it's true -- is not a deletion argument, except in limited circumstances such as blatantly promotional articles. EEng (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole -is adding three ??? to your edit summary. - Its completely , more or less uncited - looking at it, some of it imo is uncitable. Luckily its not about living people but its a bad show man. Readers come and read this sort of thing and expect our article to have a certain standard of verification which this article does not have. - Youreallycan (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three ??? conveys emphatic doubt which, far from being itself hyperbole, is in fact a measured response to (what I saw as) hyperbole. Now back to the content of the discussion... Anyone who comes to Wikipedia expecting its articles "to have a certain standard" is mixed up about how it works. I'm sure you're right that much is unverifiable, and that content should be cut. But that's not an argument for deletion. EEng (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)In the last day there has been a good effort to improve the article.[30][31] Anyone wishing to add their efforts would be welcome and that wouldn't hurt the discussion here.[32] --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Witness (1985 film) - I love that movie, very peaceful, lots of green. Harrison should have stayed with that Amish lady. Youreallycan (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't see anything that addressed the deletion rationale, which was a lack of reliable citations. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't review the whole discussion to see whether in fact this point has or hasn't been made already -- though I suspect it has -- but anyway it can stand to be made twice: lack of citations is not an argument for deletion. EEng (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re reliable citations — I expect this citation could be well used in the article,

Musto, Ronald G (2010). "Catholic Peace Traditions.". In Young, Nigel J.. The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace. 1. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

Does anyone happen to have it? (Uncle G?) Or would care to go to a library for it?

I don't think it's a matter of the material being unverifiable, but rather that effort is needed to obtain and read the Oxford article, and others, and make the inline citations. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading this right, according to this site, virtually anyone enrolled in a major UK tertiary educational institution has full access to the book. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...my library reports that they had Musto's original book, The Catholic Peace Tradition (1986) [2002] in their system, but it is now reported as "lost". Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpot: here is a list of all of the sources used to support all of the Musto content in the Wikipedia article broken down by relevant section. Whether this means we are dealing with copyvio or not is not clear to me, but I think it is obvious that the original author released their work to Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- * - There is no "obvious release of "the Musto content" to wikipedia at all. Extracts from a copyrighted work need a clear verified release statement. There is also no confirmation of the identity of the user that created the article here either. If there is either of these things please point me to them for OTRS verification. Perhaps someone could make an attempt to content the book author to see if it was him that created it and to ask for a CC release statement.Youreallycan (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase: there is no indication of any copyvio.[33] Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page history shows something interesting. Pacificus07 (talk · contribs) (also editing as 66.167.241.158 (talk · contribs)), rewrote the article due to what he saw as the previous use of "copyrighted materials" in 2006. He explains on his talk page in 2009 that "the edits are of my own original posting here, made to avoid a conflict with a copyrighted piece I'll be publishing."[34] Although I'm speculating, this tells me that Pacificus07 is User:Rgmusto, and he removed his original edits from 2006 in 2009 so that they would not conflict with his 2010 Oxford encyclopedia entry on "Catholic Peace Traditions". The IP geolocates to Musto's known location which cannot be written off as a coincidence. If this is true, and there is enough evidence pointing to its veracity, then any potential copyright problems were removed in 2009. Note, since the content was removed from Wikipedia before Oxford published Musto's encyclopedia entry, there does not seem to be a problem with the current article. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to go look at Oxford for copyvio, fine, but until then the idea that there's a copyvio remains nothing but speculation, and in fact what evidence we actually have points to someone having taken the trouble to avoid copyvio. BTW, this talk of "the original author [having] released their work to Wikipedia" doesn't apply, since most academic authors sign their copyright interest over to the publisher. EEng (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, thanks for the additional investigations - It does all point to Musto from the comments of the accounts. It is quite complicated and really would be better avoided. I still support delete and a complete rewrite as the best resolution. It seems possible that a user released content to our article under a CC licence (as we all do) and then returned to rewrite it as he then was about to copyright the text he had released here under CC licence - technically that content is un-copyright-able after its release here and he should not have done that. The offending content remains released in the articles edit history. Best resolution imo is delete - like, it's disputable , so clean it up and write yourself a new article, free of any issue - this one needs completely inline citing and as a minimum a fair degree of rewriting anyway. Youreallycan (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, there's no reasonable copyright issue regarding a contribution to Wikipedia in 2009 that may or may not have some passages that are the same as an article published later in a reliable source in 2010. I think in this case, the burden of proof is on those speculating there is a copyright problem. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If anyone wants to pursue the copyright issue, here's a link to contact information for Ronald G. Musto.[35] --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - As I understand it's the other way around at wiki we are encouraged to err on the side of caution regarding legal issues. Wikipedia:Copyright - I don't know if you are experienced in copyright? Imo the author of the article clearly states that there is a copyright problem when he says, "The edits are of my own original posting here, made to avoid a conflict with a copyrighted piece I'll be publishing." - Youreallycan (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "err on the side of caution regarding legal issues" — Within reason. The quote you gave is exculpatory, not incriminating. Contact Musto if you think the quote you gave is false. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quote I gave seems to use a bit of good faith completely correct, however that is imo a part of the problem - he had no right to do that legally. What he should have done in that situation was request a good faith deletion and oversight of the previously released content - rewriting it does not remove the fact that it was released under a commons license and does not remove it from the edit history of the article. - Also as regards deletion - none of the nominators issues have been addressed as yet at all. We still have a large uncited essay, although uncited is not a deletion rationale , under the circumstances with the additional issues, it is in this case an additional weight in support of deletion reasoning. Youreallycan (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed. The problem is that you are alleging rationales for deletion without any evidence. We have more evidence to keep this article than we have to delete it. That it has maintenance problems typical of any article under the GA/FA threshold is not a legitimate reason to delete. Xfd isn't supposed to be used for cleanup and maintenance. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read some more of the article, and it's looking like it has a big problem with NPOV. It seems to assume that the ideas of the Christian religion are true. Here's an example from the section Catholic_peace_traditions#Martyrs,

"...the martyrs were simply witness to the fact that if one were to live as a child of God, to share in God’s reign, one had to live a life of open love as the outward manifestation of the inner conversion that God’s grace has brought about."

Notice the phrase, "witness to the fact". What follows may be a fact for Christians, but not necessarily for others. This article seems to be written for, and from the point of view of Christians. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also true. As I continue to maintain, the piece is unsuitable for mainspace whether or not it is a copyright violation. But do you think that we should take the copyright issue to a venue where editors more experienced in this field can offer guidance? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but I'm wary about whether they would be sufficiently competent. I guess the only way to find out is by trying, and it may be interesting to see how it turns out. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't figure out which board to use, so I asked Moonriddengirl, who is a copyright veteran. Let's see what she says. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Catholic peace traditions" is a legitimate encyclopedia article under the topics of religion and peace and conflict studies. I cannot imagine how this could be considered "unsuitiable" for mainspace. If you see problems, fix them. But, please, don't use Xfd for cleanup and maintenance. For about three years now, I've seen editors expend an incredible amount of effort into deleting legitimate topics instead of working on fixing them. Xfd has become a lazy way of paper pushing, another bureaucratic inefficiency that places more of an incentive on decreasing the number of encyclopedic topics instead of expanding them. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the issues that seem to have prompted this AfD appear to have been introduced by the major rewrite in 2009 by Pacifcus07. Would it be acceptable to everyone to revert back to the version just before the major rewrite by that one editor?[36] Any useful information from Pacificus's major rewrite could then be introduced as appropriate and policy-compliant. Also, the version reverted to could be cleaned up if necessary. It's a much smaller and more manageable version and also contains the information that was initially contributed by Rgmusto. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still an unsourced essay trying to prove a point: check out, for example, "holy war and crusade were at best their tendentious extensions and not separate doctrines. A far greater proportion of Christians participated in widespread and deep-rooted peace movements"; the total lack of mention of the Inquisition is also troubling in an article that seems to be trying for a very large scope. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For reference, your quote is at [37]. I also looked at Inquisition#Inquisition_tribunals_and_institutions. I also checked whether the Inquisition is mentioned in the present version, and it isn't. In directing your response to me, you may be preaching to the choir re NPOV, if you can forgive this attempt at humor. : )

The question is, what is the appropriate action to take? Here's just a suggestion. Revert back to [38]. Put appropriate banners at the top of the article. Put a comment on the article's talk page saying that it is essentially on probation and if there is not sufficient progress in 6 months towards satisfying the banners, material that is not compliant with policy will be deleted and/or the article will reviewed again for deletion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:15, 28 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an informative, well-written, well-structured, elegantly illustrated, encyclopedic and above all richly-sourced article that will no doubt become a Featured Article in due course. What it largely lacks is inline citations, so perhaps it is appropriate to remind people that the criterion is that adequate (reliable, independent) sources exist, not that they are marked with inline citations. There can be no doubt (even from the article's bibliography) that the topic of the article is extremely well supported by the published secondary literature.

The article has some traces of a Christian perspective; these can certainly be corrected by editing, and in most cases I think by quite minor copy-editing or brief glossing - for instance, I just added "To Christians, ..." to make the /* New Testament */ section more neutral. This is all in a day's work for WP editors, and not a reason for deletion. This article is of exceptional interest - including to non-Christians like myself - and we have no reason not to keep it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable topic and it attempts to represent a mainstream perspective. Of course it is not perfect, but it is written by people with a genuine understanding of the subject so improvement will not be difficult. It would benefit from reference to contemporary theologians specialising in this area, more about 20th century movements, and how they relate to other denominations and faiths. Tradition in the church is not just about the past! --AJHingston (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: editors are working on contacting the author to resolve the copyright violation issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pacificus' editing "of my own original posting here, made to avoid a conflict with a copyrighted piece I'll be publishing" was unnecessary - per WP:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations: "You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like." The fact that he had published material here would not prevent him republishing it elsewhere, though copyrighting his later publication would not prevent anyone from copying the WP version.. JohnCD (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe people had raised the concern that it was a copyright violation of earlier work by him - we established that if it was the same text as the Oxford Encyclopedia piece, it wasn't a copyvio on our part, though they might not be best pleased with him since they copyrighted it. :) Anyway, hopefully it will be resolved through OTRS –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) under CSD G10. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Ryan

[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient third party RS coverage of this DJ, remixer, and record producer to meet our notability standards. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability over three years ago. Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 16 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:44, 23 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:54, 31 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LINA (software)

[edit]

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

All that I managed to find was a page of unreliable sources in this search. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I admit today this might seem a somewhat obscure part in the history of portable applications, but I remember this gained some notoriety in the Linux world a few years ago, and we do have some coverage: Computerworld.com [39], computerworld.com.au [40] [41] techworld.com [42] downloadsquad.com [43] Softpedia [44] electronista [45] linux-mag.com [46] lwn.net [47] and a few other Linux-related websites [48] [49] [50]. We also have this press release at reuters.com [51]. LINA also seems to have been featured at O'Reilly's OSCON [52] [53] This was a somewhat ground-breaking technology, but never really reached a high-level of popularity due to lack of "maturity"/development. --SF007 (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per coverage in Computer World and Tech World (links above). Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven A Williams

[edit]

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

Unsourced biography (except primary sources) that has been tagged for almost two years. Looked and didn't find anything except primary sources and a couple of listings in unreliable sources. Does not appear to meet the criteria under general notability. Appears to have been started two years ago an an autobiography. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article uses non-primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like this broken one? Or IMDB? The one that isn't broken, IMDB or owned by the subject of the article isn't independent or reliable via WP:RS. www.stevewilliams.org.uk for example, is obviously owned by him. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction That link isn't broke, it does't exist. Searching the website doesn't bring up a single mention of him. So we have primary sources and IMDB. NO independent sourcing at all. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 24 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stinks of spam, barely escapes a G11 by the skin of its teeth. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 02:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are nothing like enough to meet WP:GNG for the reasons mentioned above and I'm not seeing anything to suggest that he meets any of the additional criteria at WP:BIO either. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Userfy without redirect to User:Animeshkulkarni/Bhaag Milkha Bhaag per request in AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaag Milkha Bhaag

[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, no sources to confirm that film has started. In fact, one says that Farhan Akhtar, the lead actor will start developing his looks in January 2012. X.One ^SOS 12:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per WP:NFF, filming is yet to begin. -- Karthik Nadar 12:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As such, I'm a newbie to film articles, but Bhaag Milkha Bhaag has received a fair amount of press due to its biographical nature, as can be seen in this. Normally I would agree with WP:NFF, but I think an exception could be applied here, and WP:GNG can rule over this. However one may also agree that news coverage is not all that extensive, and hence the Weak. Lynch 7 13:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Farhan Akhtar till we can find instances of ongoing shooting OR Delete. Both are fine. X.One ^SOS 13:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ofcourse the WP:NFF is a good policy to delete this, but there are many google links coming on this search. Also the uncertainty with the film's release would remain till the film releases. Libaas is an example of one such film which didnt release since 1988 due to censorship issues. & in that case and also in any case, having a nascent article like this keeps catching all necessary things at right time. Thus making it simpler to expand. Else small things during the making will be lost. The references provided so far seems fair to keep the article going. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move: Revoting to suggest move of the article from public space to User Space instead of deleting. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. There is no certainty that the film will ever be made and the article can always be recreated when filming does start. --regentspark (comment) 15:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wp:NFF by moving to user space till its principal photography commences. AshLin (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; film still seems to be in the developmental stage so is just speculation at this stage. Betty Logan (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The pre production work has began and according to Ehsaan Noorani, they've began composing music - and Farhan has repeatedly confirmed that he's doing the project up next post Don 2 release. So far from speculative IMO Ravingranter (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Starting pre-production is not the same as starting principal photography; WP:NFF expressly states Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But doesnt one of the reference give us the reason why the filming hasnt started? We can wait till that time passes. The current day is certainly as where filming wont be done. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not why the filming hasn't started. WP:NFF is a part of WP:NF. So, coverage in a newspaper is not sufficient to say that "budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues will not interfere with the project." X.One ^SOS 07:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well.... i will just revote to Move it insead of keeping or deleting.-Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can store the info in your computer or something? X.One ^SOS 11:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite sure Animesh means Wikipedia:Userfication. Lynch 7 11:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the redirect must be deleted otherwise it is pointless to a guideline like WP:NFF. X.One ^SOS 11:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! I meant something like User:Animeshkulkarni/Bhaag Milkha Bhaag. But i dont understand these redirect things & all. If you mean instead of moving the page to User area we should delete this & instead create a separate page in user area so that it doesnt have any links, thats okay too. Saving on PC is not very helpful. In user space, at least someone will be able to edit it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:50, 31 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. Sandstein 20:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Tui

[edit]

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

There are no independent sources to support either of the claims of notability--that he was a world champion kickboxer or a world ranked boxer (see WP:NSPORTS). Jakejr (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dl2000 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a CV, not an encyclopaedia article. I would be surprised if he were considered notable given his 11-12-2 record. According to this he had a couple of shots at titles, but did not succeed at any of them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No independent verification of notability claims. Even if he'd won the titles he fought for as a boxer, he wouldn't pass WP:NSPORTS. Astudent0 (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Claim that he was a world champion kickboxer is not verifiable, but he was a professional kickboxer who fought for the OPBF middleweight title,[54], the Australian light middleweight title, [55] and the IBF Pan Pacific light middleweight title.[56]. Scottdrink (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any independent verification of him being a world kickboxing champion (no organization is even listed in the article). His boxing record fails to show he meets WP:NSPORTS#Boxing and that would be true even if he had won any of the titles mentioned by Scottdrink. There are no independent sources to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE, either. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The potential renaming of the article can be discussed on the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of private military companies

[edit]

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

This appears to be a fairly random and broadly uncited attempt to list private military contractors. The subject of the title is not defined and the article has no lead to explain what it is about. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A focused, discriminate list that enhances Wikipedia. Could use more sourcing. Propose renaming to: List of private military contractors. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No other definitive list of private military companies is available, and such a list would prove useful for the study of such companies. The article is still in dire need of sourcing, but shortage of sourcing is not just reason to delete the article, without which, many of the companies listed would not be mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia. Additionally, I see no reason to rename the page to List of private military contractors, as the two names are synonymous. Benjitheijneb (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Renaming the article to List of private military contractors would eliminate the notion of the list being perceived as companies that provide private militaries, like a private company providing an army. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think I even need to explain this. The others already said it all anyway. Dream Focus 03:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf-Dieter Wichmann

[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. He doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE and there's no evidence he meets the notability criteria as an author (WP:AUTHOR). Jakejr (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found no support for any claims of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a Karatedō instructor is not notable. Claim that he was captain of the German National Team from 1976 to 1980 is not verifiable. Coverage is not independent. Not finding significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Scottdrink (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources to verify any claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gong

[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Whenever proposed for deletion the proposal seems to be removed either by an IP address or non-registered user without any further reason given. ScottishEditor (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 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, →Σ τ c. 03:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See references section of article. Significant coverage in reliable sources, including this article in TIME Magazine, which generally doesn't cover "non-notable" people. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found even more coverage of him in a Korean newspaper [57]. Dream Focus 15:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Daniel

[edit]

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

None of the reasonably reliable sources mention him, the rest are twitter type. Under the best of circumstances, it would be a BLP1E issue, but I don't see how it even qualifies there. Not notable, vanity piece. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This man is not notable enough to need an article and it was almost certainly written by the man himself. 75.69.46.238 (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet notability guidelines, pretty obvious vanity account ChaosEmerald 00:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosE (talk • contribs)

Delete fails to meet notablity guidelines. May also fail on other grounds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 24 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, →Σ τ c. 03:53, 31 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. causa sui (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lyes Kaidi

[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this race car driver. Tagged for notability for a year. Zero refs, of this BLP. Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. French WP article shows that he only signed a F1 contract, F1 hopes ended because of medical reasons, and now races in F3. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:55, 23 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:13, 23 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, →Σ τ c. 03:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Racing is non-notable events does not create notability. Not finding significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Scottdrink (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Terence

[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient non-trivial RS coverage of this European model and DJ who has played in many nightclubs, to meet our notability standards. Tagged for notability over 2 years ago. Created by a 1-article-only SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:53, 23 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, →Σ τ c. 03:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom. No evidence of significant coverage, thus fails WP:BIO. Location (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the issue of notability, which is the central inclusion guideline problem in this discussion. Sandstein 19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Push!!

[edit]

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

All that I could fine was a Wikipedia reprint for this Japanese adult magazine. SL93 (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a bunch of Wikipedia reprints with the original title Fantajennu. SL93 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not really sure under what criteria you're saying it should be deleted. It's a ongoing, 8-year old magazine whose existence is verifiable. Granted, it has a very difficult to Google name, but that's no reason to ax it. It should be noted that it's also not just a porn rag, but a proper magazine with articles and interviews on the eroge industry. For instance, an interview from Push!! was cited for the GA article Little Busters!--Remurmur (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria is WP:N. I never said that it was pornographic. I said that it is aimed towards adults. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - While this subject may hold some personal interest for me, it currently does nothing to establish any semblance of notability. I'll be happy to revise my position if independent, significant reliable sources establishing notability are found. To responde to earlier comments, the fact the subject of the article is used as a reliable source in citations does not indicate the subject's notability (for the purpose of having an article of its own). Salvidrim! 19:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out I believe this article may be notable, but does not establish the fact, and I was unable to find sources to dismiss reasonable doubt. If reliable sources are found and implemented to support notability, as I've said above, I'll revise my !vote. Salvidrim! 19:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seem like a nice article,sure It needs a rewrite.184.44.129.253 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reply - The above editor is a long-term disruptive editor known for improper behaviour and discussion antics, who has a habit of stalking others' contributions (namely mine) and post silly or disruptive comments for the sake of it. Salvidrim! 23:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re - What?184.44.129.253 (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Being a nice article" is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Salvidrim. Not only does it not establish notability, it doesn't do much of anything. There's virtually nothing here to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been published for 8 years, as a printed magazine, and in multiple languages and nations. Dream Focus 07:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not about what the magazine is, this is about the article's notability, and I'm afraid no amount of your OR will help. Do you have an independent, reliable source for your claims? Salvidrim! 17:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say a magazine is notable if other magazines have mentioned it. That's just ridiculous. Getting mentioned a couple of times does not make something more notable than being published for 8 years and currently sold in multiple nations. You have to use common sense. WP:BURO WP:SENSE Dream Focus 20:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You point to a common sense essay. I point to WP:N. Anything better than your personal beliefs? "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused." So it is an abuse to have notable reliably sourced content when this article is not notable and has no sources? SL93 (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the second time, you claim that the subject of this article is notable because it "has been published for 8 years and is sold in multiple countries" without providing any kind of reliable source. Salvidrim! 20:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their current publisher only has issues going back to 2008 on their website. This Wikipedia article and the more detailed Japanese one [58] say it started in 1993. Click on the image of the cover, and you see words there, it not just in Japanese. Why give it an English name, if it was only sold in Japan? Amazon.com only has one product by this name I could find, that their art book, but it has English words on it. [59] Is that common to have just some English words randomly tossed onto things? Anyway, its been around for years, so people must buy it, and no reason not to list every magazine out there with enough readers to keep it going for years. Dream Focus 20:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your only sources are a Wikipedia article (possibly the least RS-compliant website) as well as synthesis from a first-party source (your analysis of the language of the words on the magazine cover), I'm afraid you're not making a very solid argument as to why this subject is notable enough to have an article -- in fact, I believe your arguments, or lack of, quite convincingly show that it is indeed non-notable (for the sake of this project). Salvidrim! 20:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party coverage or sources to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a bit of searching on Japanese websites and while some blogs do cite this as one of the major eroge magazines, those are not RS. I couldn't even find an RS to confirm claims about the length of this magazine's publication. DreamFocus's argument about use of English does not hold: Japanese publications frequently include English on the cover or elsewhere as a stylistic flourish, not because they are intended for sale outside Japan. I see no source saying this is sold outside of Japan. Unless someone can find publishing industry stats on circulation, confirming that it is a major magazine in an established publishing genre, I can't see it as notable. It is harder to find RS for such fringe genres--which just because they are fringe may not necessarily be non-notable--but as long as we have rules for notability, this doesn't cut it. Michitaro (talk) 04:20, 25 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability and WP:V The only reference is the company that makes this which also has no article so a redirect is useless, if the magazine has really been running for 8 years and gained notability then there would be things out there but sadly it looks like there is not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any possible reason anyone would write about a magazine? A magazine that has been around that long surely has a lot of readers. That equals notability by common sense. Dream Focus 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is. Any number of them; financial status, (profitable? making money? going out of business soon?) criticism of content, accolades and awards, stuff happening in the news, etc. Come on now, it just seems like you're just trying to make up with excuses as to why this doesn't get any coverage in reliable, third party source now... Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, this article is little more than a promotion for the publication. Without references it's simply fails WP:V. RadioFan (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per DreamFocus, I trust his findings that it has been published in many languages and nations and that it likely also meets the GNG.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd because it was only his assumption. SL93 (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, he didn't really find anything, he just linked to a copy of a cover on amazon and a Japanese wiki link. No actual info has really been provided by him as far as I can see... Nothing close to a WP:RS to back up what he's saying.... Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some say they put English words on the cover just for decoration, it not actually sold in English. So, my mistake. But being published for that long, is still a valid reason to keep it. Dream Focus 22:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that fact is verifiable, of course. Where's your source? Salvidrim! 22:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Willson

[edit]

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

This lighting crew member made a couple of appearances on TV, but that doesn't strike me as enough. One of the two references does not have him as the main subject, and the other is from a minor publication. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's one in ten-thousand against for a lighting person to be notable, and the subject is not the 10,000th one; no sources indicates his notability Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above causa sui (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hate Farm

[edit]

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

A fairly non-notable crust punk band that does not seem to have put out an album and was not a member of a large scene. I am tempted to G11 this article or A7 it but I will leave it up to the community at large. Guerillero | My Talk 02:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any coverage that would indicate notability.--Michig (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 31 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 redirect to United Students Against Sweatshops. causa sui (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown Solidarity Committee

[edit]

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

Single chapter university club. Got some press from a 2005 hunger strike, but that was fleeting and not "significant coverage" which requires that the source "address the subject directly in detail." That's not enough to establish notability. GrapedApe (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article was created by User:Georgetownsolidarity.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. This is a non-notable student society. No 3rd party references to boot. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Students Against Sweatshops, its parent organization. Individual chapters of national organizations are hardly ever notable, and this one isn't. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. This society is not sufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The population is evenly split and the discussion is reasonably thorough enough, so it's unlikely that relisting this discussion will have any other outcome. causa sui (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean County Sheriff's Department

[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Could not find any third party reliable sources about the organization itself. Google hits do come up, however, I am not convinced that this article should stay. If there are plenty of sources implanted and more content given, then I stand corrected. In addition, there are no other sheriff's departments in the state that have articles. What makes this so special? Tinton5 (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Little or no content Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this article lacking independent reliable sources to Ocean County, New Jersey. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all law enforcement agencies are notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Is that a subjective opinion, or can you link to a consensus discussion? The last ballpark figure I remember for law enforcement agencies in the U.S. was around 18,000. Dru of Id (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are all notable because all of them have readily available and easy to find and multiple reliable sources as this one does.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most law enforcement agencies are non-notable and this is one of them. SL93 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Just because there are no other Sheriff's Departments in that State listed on Wikipedia, does not make them non-notable. Numerous secondary independent media references of this law enforcement agency. Google News lists 191. Article is only a few days old and needs expanding - give it time IDionz (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User's account is only one day old; he has made only four contributions to Wikipedia

A source search doesn't necessarily prove notability. Most likely it is fleeting or routine coverage; in addition it appears that most of the GNews hits come from Patch or the local Asbury Park Press Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: User's account is only one day old; he has made only four contributions to Wikipedia - What has that got to do with with my participation this AFD debate? Do my comments have a lesser standing than yours? Let's concentrate on the debate about the article and not about editors. I've done a quick search on policy here and I found this Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers IDionz (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis true that editors are generally equal, but newer editors and IP's !votes in deletion discussions are often taken with a grain of salt, as very often they are unfamiliar with WP policy. I'm not saying you won't eventually become a long-standing editor, or that your vote should be struck from the record, but coming out of the gate with a WP:SOURCESEARCH/WP:GHITS argument that is suggested be avoided does indicate you may not fully understand AfD debates Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PBP please calm down and stop over~~eating~~reacting to everyone's comments.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Overeating"? That's one hilarious typo! ;) Goodvac (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you very much, I was delighted you pointed it out. What a funny slip indeed.=w00tLuciferWildCat (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is right that I have been overeating of late. Gotta worry about that...still wanna fit in a 34/32. I don't see how pointing out that another editor is new and apparently unfamiliar with deletion policy is overeating or overreacting Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You contest everyone's comments with charged and flamboyant rhetoric that is counterproductive to your goals. I am making an observation on your communication pattern not the content of any particular statement you have made. And quite clearly you did bite the newcomer while hungry and overeating and I clairvoyantly knew it!!! Happy new year. PBP89.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we delete this now? Tinton5 (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why did someone put it up for rescue? Tinton5 (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luciferwildcat misused the rescue template...again...he doesn't as of yet have a grasp of policy. Should've been CSDed, probably. I removed the template as it was being misused...he has on numerous occasions thrown the life preserver if for no other reason than he liked the article. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not misused. Please don't remove it until the AFD has ended. Dream Focus 14:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to mention why something should be rescued on the article's talk page or in the edit summary when you place a rescue template. Lucifer didn't. But I'll put it back anyway. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does get significant coverage in reliable sources, so it meets WP:GNG. It isn't just coverage from its own area, but elsewhere as well. I searched for "Ocean County Sheriff's Department" -"Asbury Park Press", to eliminate the massive coverage from that one search to see if others covered them. Covers them collecting things for charity, loaning out bloodhounds to hunt for escaped criminals, helping with a anti-gang program, doing a free photo identification program for children, etc. Asbury Park Press, Press of Atlantic City, Home News Tribune, Daily Journal, Tri-Town News, Philadelphia Daily News, Philadelphia Inquirer, and others cover their activities. [60] "The annual Ocean County Sheriff’s Department Food and Toy Drive provided a better holiday for almost 900 children in the county last year." Dream Focus 14:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waitaminute...you said you were gonna eliminate Asbury Park Press, then listed it as one of the papers that covers it Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said when you click on the Google news archive search link at the top of the AFD, you see a massive number of results from that one newspaper. I was pointing out it wasn't just local coverage, but you got coverage in a number of other news sources as well. If only one newspaper covers something, you assume its a local paper. Dream Focus 14:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Law enforcement organization with considerable coverage in reliable sources, including Philadelphia newspapers.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic receives significant, ongoing coverage about the agency itself. Many of the sources are paywalled. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ocean County, New Jersey, I'd like to say merge but there really isn't sufficient material to merge. References doen't appear to have contributed to this article that much. RadioFan (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the county as proposed above. Not enough information to make an article worthwhile beyond the trivial and minute.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I most definitely do not think that all law enforcement agencies are notable , and have !voted delete for most of them encountered here,--even though the consensus has often been otherwise. True, there will always be coverage, but equally true, it will generally be of routine operations. My standard is the size of the agency, Ocean county has a population of 570,000. That's equivalent to a medium-large city, and sufficient. That there is little information in the article is irrelevant, because the usual routine information about history and organization can easily be added. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unfortunately size alone is not a good way to judge notability either. If it's notable, some reliable source, somewhere will have written a significant amount of coverage where the department is the subject of the article. That doesn't seem to be the case here and the department can be adequately covered in the main article on the town.--RadioFan (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, either is fine. There is not sufficient evidence that this topic is notable in the article or this discussion. Police departments get mentioned in the newspaper, that's normal. There needs to be a bit more to go on before a wikipedia article is needed.--198.85.228.129 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is simply not enough coverage for this department to meet the GNG. All the results from a Google News archive search constitute routine coverage of the department's response to fires and crimes. Proponents of retention have yet to proffer one source that documents this department in detail. Goodvac (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KRename

[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this file renaming software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: KDE is a part of KDE Software Compilation. If KRename is not notable then many of the softwares on this template is not notable. Also, KRename comes with the OS if the desktop environment is KDE. Bekiroflaz (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Did You actually try? A brief search (I wasted more time formatting references, actually), gave me several sources covering this software.^[1]^[2]^[3] There were another book by the same author and some more web references I just don't want to waste my time on. Added really massive coverage in blogs and that it's a part of KDE SC, I think the notability can be assumed undisputable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I tried which is what I said. Don't assume bad faith and call me a liar. Those are trivial mentions. LXer isn't even a reliable source because anyone can submit articles. Blogs are not reliable sources and being a part of KDE does not show notability per the notability guideline. SL93 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither did I assume bad faith, nor called You a liar, I just stated You failed to do You homework. At the same time, Your reply reveals that I was wrong about which homework You didn't do. The "trivial mention" is "You shouldn't rename them by hand, KRename can help You". The sources I've linked instead describe KRename. Though the book indeed lacks detail, the other references are devoted to tool description, and KRename is one of their focuses. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like I said, LXer isn't even a reliable source. The other source mainly focuses on Gwenview. SL93 (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, removing comment was not intentional. The source by Novell indeed focuses on Gwenview, but this doesn't dismiss the fact that the whole section of article (with screenshots!!!) is devoted solely to KRename. BTW, the LXer article suggests it's a typical WP:NEWSBLOG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References found

^ Kwint, Hans (2005-11-29). "Review of some useful sysadmin-utilities". LXer. Retrieved 2011-12-31.
^ Morris, Scott M. (2005-09-21). "Create a Picture Gallery for the Internet using Gwenview". Novell. Retrieved 2011-12-31.
^ Kofler, Michael (2008-01-01). "5 KDE". Linux: Installation, Konfiguration, Anwendung. Pearson. p. 123. ISBN 9783827327529.

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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With You (Ashley Walters song)

[edit]

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

Taken directly from the article: the single failed to make any significant impact on any official singles chart. 'Nuff said. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much sums it up. Delete Emeraude (talk) 10:31, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since the song failed to make it to charts, then why is it significant? Tinton5 (talk) 02:42, 31 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Organizations (Microsoft)

[edit]

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

This is a marketing strategy disguised as an essay, disguised as an article, with references that don't support the idea that this is a notable concept or term. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This text was dumped into the Hybrid organization page (that's an article on the organizational theory concept of mixed public / private (ie hybrid) organizations). Deb put the Microsoft text on there, 'incorporat[ing] material from redirected article'. I moved the material on Microsofts product to a new page because it had nothing whatsoever to do with the original page. I'm all for deleting it; just don't move it back to the Hybrid organization page because it doesn't belong there. --Irisv (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't understand the reason for User:Deb incorporating the material here but it looks to me we have lost attribution (twice?). I agree the material was not appropriate for Hybrid organization. Seeing as there has presumably been a (rather technical) breach of copyright within WP, I suggest this article is deleted. However, my feeling is the article possibly does establish notability, though through its external links. Thincat (talk) 17:33, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a pretty clear consensus: so far we've got three votes for deletion, and zero against. --Irisv (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War Democrats (2000s)

[edit]

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

Appears to be an entirely invented neologism. Loonymonkey (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Expression not used much. Actually most members of the Democratic Party (including President Obama) do support the "war on terrorism." Borock (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Non-Notable Neologism, with heavy POV overtones. I mean, hell, if you're gonna push a point of view, at least be logical about it and argue that the BIG MAJORITY of the Democratic Party are "War Democrats" that regularly vote in support of the largest military budget in the history of humanity, as large as that of the next 15 nations combined. Consistency with those neologisms, please. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This neologism is an attempt to recycle a notable political catch phrase from the 1860s. Those War Democrats were the Democrats who entered into a tactical alliance with Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans in support of their all out war policy during the American Civil War in opposition to the Copperhead Democrats who favored peace with the Confederates and slave holders. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't see any reason why this article can't become part of the article War Democrats under a subsection. If not, delete per WP:NEO. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 00:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be inappropriate because the topic of Civil War era War Democrats is indisputably notable since it is discussed in great detail by historians and political scientists. This article about the 21st century usage is unreferenced except to a dead link to one political commentator's website. Google searches uncover no significant usage of the term, and far more often find examples of a sentence ending in "war" and the following sentence beginning with "Democrats", or the phrase "anti-war Democrats". In particular, the claim that Lieberman and Miller are "War Democrats" is unreferenced and therefore original research. The Civil War usage is notable, while the modern usage is non-notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., others & WP:NEO. Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced neologism, and redundant to the better-sourced article Bush Democrat. Robofish (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco is a Lonely Town

[edit]

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

no indication of meeting WP:NSONGS Covered by a few people but not made any impact on charts. References given do not support notability and google searches do not find anything. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NSONGS states "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Well, this did chart, in a minor way admittedly, and it has been independently released by oodles of notable artists - at least 11, by my count. I also thought the recent Nouvelle Vague remix showed that it was still considered in some way interesting, perhaps as a period piece. (I am the author of the article, btw.) Brianyoumans (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have just discovered that two versions of the song charted in 1969 - a version by the songwriter, Ben Peters, was on the country charts.Brianyoumans (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And now I found yet another obscure chart appearance of the song, #86 on the country charts in 1979 for someone named "Nick Nixon". I kid you not.Brianyoumans (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the creator. made the Hot 100 in one iteration, rich tradition of covers. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does it meet WP:NSONGS. A large number of covers could do it if there was enough material for a substantial article - all this article is is a list of people that have covered it - all with very little success. noq (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a great fan of the recording by several notable artists part of WP:NSONGS, but 3 chart entries by different artists does make it notable. Richhoncho (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed about the covers bit. Back in the 40s - 50s -60s, it was quite normal for a song to come out from multiple artists - singers and bands would put out many albums a year, and they would cover the currently popular tunes and old standards. In country music this lasted until more recently, and is still somewhat true, I think. So the fact that there were multiple covers would simply mean that people in the industry thought a cover could be successful, either because other covers had been or because they simply thought it had potential which the other covers hadn't mined.Brianyoumans (talk) 16:45, 31 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. Much of the argument to keep is based on the number of sources and not the quality of those sources. The idea that any entity that can be considered a reliable source is therefore automatically notable seems dubious at best. While this organization's products are discussed and their staff is sometimes quoted in reliable sources, it seems there is a scarcity of substantive discussion about the organization itself, which is of course what is required to establish notability. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to an appropriate target. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquy (company)

[edit]

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

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

I found no significant coverage for this company. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not able to find significant coverage about this company from reliable sources. Folgertat (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I was, but "Colloquy (company)" is indeed a dead end, try "Colloquy marketing" there are a s--tload of sources on this.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are press releases. SL93 (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're not all press releases. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week~~ Keep – per coverage in reliable sources:

Johannes, Amy (July 1, 2008). "Stacking Up". Promo Magazine. Retrieved December 25, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Belford, Terrence (April 10, 2008). "Good things for reward-point holders who wait". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 25, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Lieber, Ron (April 19, 2011). "All About Your Unused Rewards Points". The New York Times. Retrieved December 25, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Web Sting". The Dallas Morning News. May 7, 2000. Retrieved December 25, 2011. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Loyalty marketing is a matter of attraction". Star Tribune (Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN). December 21, 2009. Retrieved December 25, 2011. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See below for more reliable sources I have added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have been found. Dream Focus 09:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References have been found and added to the article. All well and good - but where is the content? The article makes zero assertion of notability; are the 'references' anything more than trivial mentions? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times quotes their research for one of their articles.[61] Others surely consider them a notable group and a reliable source for information. Dream Focus 00:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that the New York Times is a reliable source. However, the coverage of Colloquy in the article is incidental and thus does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd be very interested to see several articles from reliable sources for which the company is the central focus. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 02:51, 30 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below, "Recent additions to the article include an assertion of significance". Also, the article is in an incomplete state at this time, and would benefit from expansion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The overarching standard for WP:ORG established by WP:CORPDEPTH is that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." I now consider whether the sources presented meet that standard. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." Consider each source presented by Northamerica1000 in turn. The New York Times article is clearly incidental coverage. The article is about the study; Colloquy is mentioned in passing in one sentence and then never discussed. Colloquy receives more coverage in The Star, but is still not the focus of the article. The same goes for the Promo Magazine article. In all articles the focus is the survey produced by Colloquy, and per WP:PRODUCT, "an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." All coverage in these sources is incidental. Now I consider sources presented by LuciferWildCat. As SL93 pointed out, the vast majority of search results are press releases. Per WP:INDEPENDENT, we cannot accept press releases as WP:V. If this company does indeed meet the standard set out by WP:ORG, why have we not seen coverage in multiple independent sources in which the company itself is the focus? I have yet to see a single instance of coverage for the company itself that is both significant and independent. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 02:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Each and every source I posted above in my !vote to "keep" is entirely independent of the subject. They're not press releases, and are not published by the company whatsoever. Also, have you attempted to search for sources yourself, or just waiting to "see" what others do? Clarification would help this AfD discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I do not dispute the independence of your sources. Being independent of the subject is only one criteria for a source. As I noted in my vote to delete, WP:CORPDEPTH also requires that coverage not be incidental. All coverage in the sources you listed is incidental (i.e. the company is not the subject of the article and the company is not discussed at length). I also noted that per WP:PRODUCT, notable coverage of a product, in this case the survey, does not mean the company itself inherits notability. I have attempted to locate independent sources that cover the company itself, but I cannot locate any. If the company is indeed WP:N, it should not be that difficult to find coverage that is: (1) independent, (2) substantial, and (3) non-incidental. However I see no source that meets these criteria here. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Recent additions to the article include an assertion of significance: "The company touts itself as 'the most comprehensive loyalty web site in the world'". The article remains incomplete at this time, and in need of expansion, not deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with Byzantium's reasoning. This is in fact not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish WP:GNG, and falls far short of WP:CORPDEPTH. The ample passing mention, company spokespersons speaking about the company or being interviewed about something else, and the overwhelming amount of press releases inure no notability to this subject. JFHJr (㊟) 05:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This nomination for deletion is problematic, because it bases the rationale for deletion upon, "Fails WP:CORP." However, WP:CORP is an entire page of guidelines, and no specific guideline or guidelines have been cited by the nominator as a rationale for deletion. This equates to stating that an article should be deleted because of any reason on a guideline page. Perhaps the nominator could expound upon their rationale. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Also of importance, people from Colloquy are regularly quoted in mass media, and as such, makes Colloquy authoritative regarding the topic of loyalty programs and loyalty marketing. This also contributes to this topic's notability. For example, from a new reference I just added to the article:

Lieber, Ron (June 7, 2008). "The Card-Carrying Starbucks Fan". The New York Times. Retrieved December 30, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Which states (from a part of the article):

"Tracking customers through loyalty program account numbers offers companies an additional advantage. “If you don’t have a lot of information on your target audience and you need to get it, then you want to try to encourage people to enroll in as large a number as possible,” says Rick Ferguson, editorial director at Colloquy, a loyalty marketing firm. Once a company has more data, it can tailor the program further and aim at the most profitable customers with special offers. That’s what Starbucks will try to do now. Sales at stores open more than a year are actually falling, which has never happened to the chain before. The company blames the economy in part, and worries about consumers trading down from Frappuccinos to black coffee or simply caffeinating at home."

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Added another source, further demonstrating Colloquy's expertise regarding loyalty programs and marketing:

"Loyalty Program Membership Grows, But Activity Remains Flat: Colloquy". Promo Magazine. April 22, 2009. Retrieved December 30, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – And another (note, this is not a press release, it's an article from Media Post Publications)...

Irwin, Tanya (March 29, 2010). "Walmart Dominates Colloquy Loyalty Study". Media Post Publications. Retrieved December 30, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is coverage of a Colloquy product. Per WP:PRODUCT, the company does not inherit notability from a product. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Yet another use of Colloquy's resources in The New York Times, further demonstrating expertise and trust as a reliable source of information itself. Note how the article cites Colloquy research directly, and uses that research to draw conclusions in the article:

Stellin, Susan (August 24, 2009). "Airlines Are Sweetening Frequent-Flier Programs". The New York Times. Retrieved December 30, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

"A research company that tracks loyalty programs found that membership in credit card reward programs surpassed membership in frequent-flier programs for the first time in 2009. According to Colloquy, the company that conducted the research, the average household in the United States is signed up for 14 loyalty programs, ranging from grocery stores and gas stations to airlines and hotels, but actively participates in only six. The recession has diminished participation in multiple travel programs, said Kelly Hlavinka, a partner at Colloquy. She said this could bring about a return to the original premise of loyalty rewards: to cement a relationship with just one airline or hotel. “Savvy travelers may be saying, ‘I may not be able to spread my business out to two or three airlines, but I can consolidate my travel with one company,’ ” Ms. Hlavinka said. “The real opportunity for airlines is to try to keep that business with their airline.”"

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Yet another, clearly Colloquy has expertise, and is cited repeatedly in reliable sources, which makes it a reliable source; this serves to further confer topic notability:

"Six Reasons Card Rewards go Unredeemed -- and How to Change That". Fox Business News. December 16, 2011. Retrieved December 30, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

An article's premise supported by Colloquy's statements:

"If someone gave you $600, would you throw $200 away? That's essentially what many consumers do since Americans earn approximately $48 billion in rewards points and miles each year through customer loyalty programs, yet about one-third of that amount -- or $16 billion -- goes unredeemed each year, according to a study by loyalty marketing information company Colloquy and global commerce firm Swift Exchange. Included in that total are unused credit card rewards, says Jim Sullivan, a partner with Colloquy. When such rewards go unredeemed, "the average household is throwing money out the window," Sullivan says."

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More...

Todé, Chantal (April 28, 2007). "Loyalty program participation low: Colloquy report". Direct Marketing News. Retrieved December 30, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Colloquy's research is cited in college empirical research:

Ramsdell, Kimberly; Ruscitti, Eric (April 22, 2008). "Understanding and Improving Customer Loyalty at The Sole Proprietor Restaurant" (PDF). Wprcester Polytechnic Institute. pp. 17–18, 152. Retrieved December 30, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a final project that an undergraduate did. I do not agree that this is a reliable source. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Their research also provides the basis for market analyses (note, this also is not a press release)...

"COLLOQUY 2010 Retail Loyalty Index: Low Prices Replace Customer Service As Top Driver of Customer Loyalty". Restaurant News Resource. March 29, 2010. Retrieved December 30, 2011. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting relisting – I request this AfD discussion be relisted, per the research I have performed that further qualifies this topic's notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:51, 30 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, causa sui (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable company with sources given. Expansion to the page is needed, not deletion. Tinton5 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't say I've checked every one of the ocean of sources listed above or in the article. I can say that every one that I did check is a passing mention or press release. It doesn't matter that the NYT or WSJ mentions, in passing, that "blah blah blah, according to market research firm Coloquy," because that's not coverage of Coloquy, anymore than "Five firefighters were injured, said Fire Chief Steve Smith" is coverage of Chief Smith -- regardless of how many nights he's quoted for the daily fire statistics. Please, stop wasting everyone's time and show us the coverage of this company, if such coverage exists. EEng (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's corporate spam for a non-notable agency with no sources but trivial mentions to prove the article's assertions Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple refs have been added with sufficient coverage to easilly pass GNG. Could be an interesting article for those who use loyalty schemes or who study consumerism. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, but can you point out the particular refs which satisfy your assertion of "sufficient coverage"? If there's more than necessary to choose from, just pick out an arbitrary subset so those of us with short attention spans won't have to wade through all the dross to find the substance. EEng (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I echo EEng's request. I've looked through the majority of the references and I haven't seen a single one that makes a case for WP:CORPDEPTH, never mind multiple -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 14:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly tickled by the editor who dumped a flurry of citations into the article that are used nowhere. I fail to see how any of these references do anything to demonstrate notability of the agency in question. At the same time the above was added, said editor added "notable" to the description, as if this somehow automatically removes the deletion threat. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I aree with you. The quality of some of the references is being misrepresented in some cases (i.e. the scholarly research is actually just an undergraduates final project). The problem is that this article has been targeted for rescue by the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. This is my first experience with them and it has been very negative. They've dumped a lot of substandard references and votes to keep without any fleshed out argument. It makes it very difficult to actually find sources that are notable, since there is now so much fluff to sort through. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 14:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All those saying keep have given arguments. Their research is cited its peers, giving ample coverage in reliable sources. So they are notable in their field. Dream Focus 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, bear with those of us who are slow and dense. Please, pick out just two refs which are actually about this company, not just 3-sentence quotes from something someone in the company said, and list them here. To make it easy, here's a little template to fill out:

Ref #1-actually-discussing-Colloquy-itself-not-just-saying-they-said-something is this: [fill in here]

Ref #2-actually-discussing-Colloquy-itself-not-just-saying-they-said-something is this: [fill in here]

Thanks in advance!

EEng (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your work is cited, you are notable. That's how it works with people, and no sense not doing it with research companies or organizations. Why would anyone do an entire write up on a company like this? What would there be to say? They don't make any flashy products, they just do research. Dream Focus 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know, maybe there'd be things to say such as those said about The_Gallup_Organization or Arbitron. EEng (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is explicitly not the case for WP:ORG. As has been noted previously, WP:PRODUCT states that "a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right... notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result.". -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 17:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment As this agency seems to be a subsidiary of LoyaltyOne, an agency that seems quite a bit more notable, one possible outcome to be considered for this AfD is a redirect to this article, which already mentions this agency in one sentence. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a large number of sources have been added to the article in an attempt to rescue it, but they do not demonstrate notability. Apart from the company website (which is not independent) they are all news articles which report on surveys conducted by Colloquy. Coverage of the company itself is limited to brief descriptions such as "a marketing consultant and publisher" and quotations from people associated with the company. WP:CORP requires that the coverage of the subject is significant and "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization" is specifically excluded. [62] is an undergraduate report and thus not very reliable, and coverage of the company itself is limited to a passing mention of "a leading provider of loyalty-marketing information, consulting, research and education" in a paragraph about one of their surveys. A search on Google News produces a large number of hits, but on closer inspection they turn out to be brief quotes along the lines of those already in the article or press releases by the company itself. Based on this Colloquy does not satisfy WP:CORP. Hut 8.5 14:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is acknowledged that the NYT seems to enjoy using this company's products, but the standard for notability is coverage of the company itself, not just indications of wide usage of their products. In this case, such coverage has not been able to be located. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect/Merge to LoyaltyOne. This seems an adequate solution in light of the concerns about the coverage of the company its self. May encourage some positive expansion of that article. Pol430 talk to me 16:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E-International Relations

[edit]

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

Article was PRODded with reason "At first appearance, this looks like a well-sourced stub. However, most references are to people's CVs, confirming that they published on this website. The only other reference is to the website itself. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NJournals, or WP:WEB." De-PRODded by an editor who added a reference to a "links of interest" page at the website of the London School of Economics as proof of notability. As this is obviously not sufficient, I'm bringing this to AfD. Not notable, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what of the other 6 references to the website being cited by such publications as the wall street journal which I have also added to my revision of the article? I think they, in combination with the LSe link and the other 3 links to universities recommending material on e-IR to their students make for clear notability. I think the editor above is taking an unduly restrictive line which is in ignorance of the facts. This appears to be a one person driven affair - and I would move that more opinion/input is necessary. I found all these links in 25 minutes of searching online - I dont think i had to look very hard to find e-IR's notability! If I keep looking im sure I'll find dozens more links to other 3rd party publications/organisations referencing the website Iro008 —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment As far as I can see, none of the references added do anything to confirm notability according to our usual standards: most are trivial, none are substantial. As for the "one person driven affair", it should be noted that the only edits of Iro008 to other articles than the present one have been to insert references to e-International Relations. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing my devotion to making sure e-International Relations has a good wikipedia entry. Though I have contributed to other articles on wikipedia - via this account so look harder before you accuse me of single minded advocacy. I used the website through my university degree after a proferssor pointed it out and I want to make sure it is represented well here. I'd also like to point out that from a basic google search, there are about 30 wikipedia articles on political issues / politics academia that have substantial references to articles from e-International relations - very few made by me (3 by me I believe) - so if the website is not notable as the editor above says, you had better start working harder to make wikipedia conform to it's own rules! Iro008 —Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else steps in I think this is a clear case for ~~no consensus~~, and with that, this 2+ year old entry should remain Iro008 —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

AfD discussions are usually up for a week, just so you know. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering the fact that the organization has been around only since 2007 (and incorporated as an NPO since 2011), the fact that it has been referenced by multiple notable publications (Wall Street Journal, The Brookings Institute, and the London School of Economics is enough to fulfill WP:NJOURNAL on point #2. It really doesn't matter that the author of the article has a strong interest because done he/she has done an excellent job of providing reliable sources to show evidence of notability of this publication. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' For the purposes of NJournal#2, we generally need hundreds of such citations before we accept a journal as notable (unless, of course, one or two of those notable publications had written in-depth about the journal). A hundful of citations to articles in a magazine/journal doesn't cut it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that I read "hundreds" anywhere in the notability criteria. I would be reluctant to support keeping the article if the citations were in unreliable or local publications, but they are not. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Compare this to WP:PROF. There, too, we judge an academic notable if his works have been cited, but only if that has been done hundreds of times. Unless, again, there are articles about her/him. The whole difference lies in the distinction between a "citation" and an "article about something/somebody". The latter is highly significant. The former isn't. Every academic will have been cited at least a few times by reputable academic journals. Yet we don't take that as evidence for notability, unless the number of citations indicates that the person has had a significant impact on his/her field of study. NJournals was modelled in part on PROF (I know, I started NJournals and the edit summary of that first edit actually specifies this... :-) Even disregarding NJournals, GNG does not accept in-passing mentions as evidence of notability either. None of the sources provided for eIR actually discusses the publication, they just cite an article that appeared in eIR, which is something very different. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since e-International Relations commissions it's articles, I think citations of articles (of which there are dozens of reputable examples easily available) go to notability of the publication itself.Iro008 —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed with I Jethrobot. to Keep. I don't think the comments by Guillaume2303 that references to the Wall St Journal, Brookings, and the LSE (etc..) are 'trivial' and not notable are accurate. I'm not sure what else a journal/magazine needs to establish notability? If Guillaume2303 would like to establish that it might be helpful Iro008 —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete but open to keep I just don't see sufficient coverage from reliable sources that are significant if that could be overcome perhaps it should be kept.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’m an academic and this website is certainly notable to me. I have it on 4 of my course kits and consider it an important resource in an era when journals are becoming too expensive for institutions and often too ivory tower inward looking for any use in teaching. e-IR has become in a few years a very well known and reliable resource in the field of international relations. While you guys might not think it is notable according to your incomprehensibly difficult to follow and complex wiki rules, my community (IR academics) is fully behind keeping this on wikipedia as it helps make wikipedia more academically reliable as a resource itself. And that is important also. Thanks (I don’t use wikipedia much so sorry if I have done this wrong!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.98.16 (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC) — 89.242.98.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Following up from my last point, although these come from e-IR itself in the sense that e-IR has compiled them, these quotes are from leading IR academics and a diplomat - which expands on my point made above (again sorry im new to wiki if i have done this wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.80.94 (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this has been up for more than a week... No consensus? I think notability is at least defendable here. Iro008 (talk) 15:16, 30 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, causa sui (talk) 00:22, 31 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. Sandstein 19:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pancreatic Cancer Action Network

[edit]

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

I don't believe the subject of this article meets WP:NONPROFIT, failing, in particular, criterion #2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'd say it's borderline. It does have quite a bit of coverage at Google News, but not much of it is SIGNIFICANT coverage ABOUT the organization. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with norminator. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 31 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. A passionate defense, but the consensus is clear.--Kubigula (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meyhem Lauren

[edit]

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

Does not appear too meet the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The VV source in the article [63] is good. pretty good rundown of coverage at his webpage [64]. Includes scans & pdfs of numerous print sources like Juice, the graffiti mag Bombin', and illustration mag (i think? article seems focused on clothing) For What It's Worth, the bloggy but good (cited by NYT, The Atlantic, hiphopdx) unkut.com [65] , review by The Needle Drop [66], Clout mag interview [67] (About page) and a really nice piece @ t.r.o.y. that probably can't be used. [68] 86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)— 86.44.31.213 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - If he has so many good sources, why haven't they been added to the article? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't they been added to the article... by you? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not obliged to add sources to an article if I do not wish to, especially in areas I don't have any particular experience in. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 09:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Your disinclination isn't a deletion rationale tho. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one with the sources. Onus is on you to add them yourself. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 09:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you can't compel a volunteer to do work you're not interested in doing by threatening deletion. (i've already voluntarily done work you're not interested in doing. hence we all have some sources now. would you rather i didn't do this work?) also, either the subject is notable or it's not. do you have an opinion? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I can't compel someone to work on an article. But, nor can you. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because they don't meet WP:RS? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your opinion? If so, can you be more specific, or do you think they are uniformly bad? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the issues are as follows: 1) [69] This one isn't bad, but it just lists Meyhem as one person in a list of others. It's something that could be used as a trivial source to back up claims, but lists like those don't generally show notability because it doesn't focus on any one person. 2) [70] This one links to his website, making it a primary source. Unless someone is considered to be an authority on a subject, you can't use anything that they or any of their agents put out. Being an authority would mean that there would be so many sources proving notability that citing Meyhem wouldn't be an issue, which isn't the case here. You could probably use it to find the actual sources, but I'd look at the articles to verify that they're the same before quoting them. (Hey, it's showbusiness. Everyone changes things to make themselves look good.) 3) [71] This one suffers from the same issues as the first link: it merely lists the album along with another one. It'd be good for a trivial source, but not as a reliable source. 4) [72] This one is sort of tricky and mostly has to do with the notability of the person doing the review. They do have an article here on Wikipedia, but it's tagged for notability. A review or article has to be done by a reliable person or group (Maxim, Vice, etc.) to be considered a reliable source. Having an article on Wikipedia doesn't always mean that something is notable. It might just mean that someone hasn't gotten around to deleting the article yet. 5) [73] This one falls under the same problems as #4: it is dubious as to how notable Clout is. It's otherwise a good article, but the source has to be considered notable/reliable. The magazine is legit, but it's indie so those types of magazines are always debated as far as reliability goes. 6) [74] Blogs can't be used as reliable sources unless it's by someone incredibly notable. If I wrote a blog it wouldn't be able to be used, but if someone like Sean Combs, the editor of XXL, or even someone not in that genre of music like Justin Bieber were to write a blog about him, that could be used.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
It's a pretty strict guideline, unfortunately. Since Mayhem isn't released on what Wikipedia would consider a major label at this point in time, he can't get by on the major label part of WP:MUSICBIO. One thing I do want to comment on is that you should never expect people to add sources or facts for you. Always assume that no matter how many people you talk to, that we won't edit an article and that you'll be the only person who will edit the article at all. My reasoning behind this is that I've seen articles get created and then go YEARS without someone touching it, only for people to get upset when it comes up to deletion, wondering why nobody added sources. While you didn't create the article, always assume that no other editors will do the work after you leave the page. Sometimes people will go without adding or editing anything for various reasons, ranging from not having anything to add to simply being too exhausted and/or uninterested to do anything. Now don't go crazy, expecting that they won't edit anything that's obviously wrong, but always assume that your electronic hands will be the last one to handle the article. That said, you might want to look into seeing if the original owner wants to incubate this article until reliable sources can be found showing that Mayhem passes music notability guidelines. If she or he won't, then I recommend signing up for an account and userfying it yourself. (WP:USERFY) Hopefully some of all this can help explain the policies and such.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Thanks, but i didn't mean to give the impression i'm not clear on the policies. I am. You misunderstand my linking to meyhem's press page. That lists independent coverage, as i (partially) detailed above. Your rundown has therefore skipped four articles in three print sources. Your rundown also misunderstands what constitutes non-trivial coverage. To see this is so, compare the significant treatment you call trivial to the examples of triviality in the guideline. These are not lists, but rather the act is not the sole subject of the articles. You come to no conclusion, as far as i can tell, on Clout and The Needle Drop. I have no plans to edit the article. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no plans on editing the article then don't be surprised when it gets deleted. An AfD is more than just throwing sources out there. You also have to add them to the article or it will be brought up to AfD again even if it manages to get kept. My point is that if you really want to have the article kept, WORK ON IT rather than trying to get others to do it for you.Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79

Nowhere have i tried to get others to do it for me, although now you mention it it's an idea not without merit in the spirit of collaboration. Anyone bringing an article back to AfD should check previous discussion. i'm content to demonstrate notability. AfD is not for problems that can be fixed through normal editing. The insistence that i work on the article while an AfD is ongoing merely because i find it notable is a low sort of blackmail, and the implication that my doing such work would cause !votes to switch to Keep rather exposes the problem with this line of thinking. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point was just to say that if you're going to put this much work into trying to save it, the best way to save it is to add the sources to the article and flesh it out. Unfortunately there's going to be a lot of people who decide based on the way the article looks and there's a lot of people who do their own searches and base their decisions off of that as well as on what is in the article. They might not lend as much weight to things mentioned in the AfD and not put in the article, thinking that they aren't usable for whatever reason. It'd be nice if people were to be more meticulous, but sometimes they aren't. My intention wasn't to blackmail, but to say that pretty much you can't expect or rely on anyone else to do anything on an article unless it's on an article that's so big and so mainstream that it has a huge amount of editors monitoring it. Trust me, I've learned that point the hard way. I've also learned that listing things in an AfD doesn't always mean that people will listen to them or even put them on the article. I've listed references in the past and left it up to others to add them, only for people to ignore them and then the article gets deleted. Maybe the sources weren't reliable, maybe they were. The point is that I didn't do the work myself and nobody did it for me and there's a chance that my lack of work might have kept the article from being kept. I know that on the times where I have found the sources and added them to the article rather than to the AfD, I've had a higher rate of those articles being kept. I'm just telling you what I've discovered through my own past experiences, is all. If you want an article to be kept, work on it. Sometimes a well laid out article with good resources can work miracles. If you don't want to do it then nobody's really forcing you to. Just from my experience, a lack of action can lead to articles being deleted and I've seen some articles and images that I've created and uploaded deleted because I didn't work on them and I assumed that others would.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. I looked at the sources provided in the article and in this AfD, and what I could find on my own. In balance, I just don't think that the notability is there yet, but it could be in the near future (say, a year), hence "incubate" rather than "delete". Happy to look at additional sourcing, now or in the future. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So your position is that, to pick two, [75] & [76] does not constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The interview in Juice and his inclusion in the list from the blog on the Village Voice are useful and help the case but are not enough by themselves. When you say "to pick two", you imply that there is plenty more of this quality (in both substance and WP:RS), but is there yet? The Clout and Needle Drop refs you mention above are also of use, but I don't think there's enough there yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think you've explained why you think by themselves they are not enough, since you seem to agree they constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, though as you say they are not by themselves. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 12:55, 31 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, causa sui (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I see is unreliable sources; because of that, the content is not verifiable and notability cannot be established. Pol430 talk to me 15:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? You seem unique in finding the Village Voice and Juice sources unreliable, and it's hard to believe you've done a shred of research into any source presented. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're so deadset on arguing those sources are good enough, put your money where your mouth is and add them to the article as sources yourself. Stop trying to force us to do it or arguing that it should be kept because of the potential sources. That's not how things work. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i've never tried to force anyone to do it. the sources are actual. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then put them in the article. AfD can only assess what is presently in the article, not what could potentially go in the article. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you have no view to express on the notability of the subject, please use Talk for any further correspondence. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, 86.44. Put them in the article if you think they can prove his notability. What I said above holds true - we don't judge an article on it's potential notability; we judge it on what's been proven. And there is precedent for AfDs to reverse course if they've been edited to address concerns raised in the nomination during the course of it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reverted my delete close on this, which was preformed 1 Jan. I invite further discussion and !votes. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like others, I find the heap of blog posts and websites unpersuasive as reliable, independent sources, and I'm quite comfortable with WP:MUSICBIO setting a relatively high notability bar which procludes every unknown indie auteur with a mixtape. WP:V is also quite explicit and quite clear that sources cannot merely be alleged, but must be produced in the article in order to sustain it, while deletion policy is likewise quite clear that the onus is on editors who wish to save an article to produce the evidence necessary to do so. The curious disinclination of the single Keep proponent to improve the article doesn't fill me with confidence that the article is likely to be improved in the future. Ravenswing 10:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re WP:V, if you wish to challenge statements in the article, do so! preferably on the talk page, i.e. thru the normal editing process. re wp:del, not sure what you're citing, but evidence has been produced. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More correctly, you find the heap of blog posts, print sources and websites unpersuasive as reliable, independent sources. Why you do not say. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources not included as citations in article are irrelevant to this discussion, particularly since supporters haven't added any during the several weeks that the AfD notice has been up. Single source cited in article (VV blog entry) isn't enough: it falls short of "significant coverage", listing article's subject as one of five artists to watch but not covering him in any real depth; and it seems more to speculate on his future notability than to confirm his notability at the time of writing. Since it's been 11 months and that future notability apparently hasn't eventuated, we must assume that the prophecy of notability has fizzled out. Ammodramus (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are what confirm wiki-notability, whether or not they speculate as to subject's future. If they do, that is itself notable and significant. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a load of bung. New York Times could speculate all they want as to Ralph Nader's chances to become President of the United States; it would be flatly dishonest to present the article as if he is already notable for being such. And why are you so hesitant to add the sources yourself? I'm genuinely perplexed that you would defend the article yet not do a damn thing to improve it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this has been listed for three weeks without any improvement. I see no evidence of notability by any measure. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Atlanta

[edit]

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

The Demographics of Atlanta article contains almost no additional information versus the Demographics section of the main Atlanta page (Atlanta#Demographics). The sole exception is a list of population by year over time, but this is just turning the historic population table into prose - which has no added value - and there are a few random facts about points in time when the city limits were increased. I would be glad to have a separate article on Demographics of Atlanta if there were any value added in it. However, its current existence as merely a "mirror" of what is in Atlanta#Demographics just makes those two pages out of sync and creates false expectations for users who might navigate to the Demographics article that there might be more information here. Keizers (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added more information so that it is not duplicate, and I plan to add more in the future. In any case, the demographics of Atlanta are a very interesting area of study to many people, and have implications that stretch far beyond. Thus, it deserves its own page, as it will likely to continue to grow, and that new information would be forced into the main article if there is no separate demographics page. I also question the editor's original actions of deleting it without following the proper procedures; if I hadn't corrected him, there would have never been an entry on the articles for deletion page. This makes me suspicious of her motives.--Mmann1988 (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" I also question the editor's original actions of deleting it without following the proper procedures; if I hadn't corrected him, there would have never been an entry on the articles for deletion page. This makes me suspicious of her motives" - I don't see how that is relevant to this AfD discussion. That is, again, making things personal.

I think the question is, is the promise of adding unique material to this article sufficient to keep the article. Also we are supposed to vote Keep or Delete, suggest you label your post as such Keizers (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's been a while since I've participated in AfD, so forgive me if I'm hazy on AfD criteria.

I notice that some cities have daughter articles entitled "Demographics of (cityname)". Perhaps it's appropriate for Atlanta to have one as well. The bulky tables and demographic details can be shunted off to the Demo article (see, for example, Demographics of New York City. As Mmann suggests, the article can grow over time. The main article on Atlanta would include just a brief encapsulation of ATL demographics. I'd suggest leaving "black mecca" in the summary within the Atlanta article as I suspect that it's an important topic and will merit its own article (Atlanta and African-American Culture or something like that?)

I'm hoping that the two involved editors can come to an amicable meeting of the minds. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is what we already had. We had a Demographics of Atlanta article which contained exactly what was in the main Atlanta article. And with a promise that it would develop into more over time, which it hasn't. So the question is - how long do we keep a Demographics article which contains no additional information vs. the main article? I mean, I just don't see the point, the just get out of sync. Keizers (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Atlanta article. I don't see that the size of the demographics section in the Atlanta article is so large that it needs its own section, although I can see with further expansion that may be necessary. I suggest that any expansion occur within the Atlanta article, and when it grows to an extent that makes it difficult to sustain as a section, that it be split off to the Demographics article per Wikipedia:Summary style, after some talk page discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 22 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is actually a split/merge decision. There is enough material in Demographics of Atlanta to justify an article, and there is room for growth. The section in the Atlanta article contains two tables that are better in a dedicated article than in a general article on the town, so can be cut down. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:35, 30 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, causa sui (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article at this time appears to have been further expanded and improved, and has much more information compared to the demographics section of the Atlanta article. This is definitely not a duplicate of the demographics section of the Atlanta article at this time. A reasonable content fork that adds value to the Wikipedia project. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 31 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.