< 3 January	5 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 delete. no objections to something meaninful being written in its place per Ungle G or a redirect if anyone can be bothered, Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etherealization[edit]

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

This is just a dicdef. It is two dicdefs but isn't anything that is going to grow into an encyclopedia article. It was deleted as a PROD, asked for userfication (out of curiousity, not out of intent to improve it) but restored to main. I am assuming the requesters curiousity has been settled. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and, worse, remarkably uninformative. Claims to notability are limited to a statement that Buckminster Fuller first used the word. This one dates from the days when an IP could create an article. Mandsford 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now now! Not having an account is not an automatic indicator of either bad faith or incompetence. (Although getting the wrong name for Fuller's concept is an indicator of not knowing what the Heck one is writing about.) Uncle G (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Buckminster Fuller's concept is properly named ephemeralization (for which sources are abundant). It was Arnold Toynbee who wrote of etherealization ("a consequent transfer of energy, or shift of emphasis, from some lower sphere of being or of action to a higher" — A Study of History, Volume 1, pp. 198), which he also called simplification ("Perhaps we shall be describing it in a more illuminating way if we call it not simplification but etherealization." — op. cit.). Lewis Mumford talked about a similar but not identical concept that is the opposite of materialization, and also called it dematerialization (ISBN 9780807116500 pp. 104). Spiritualists also have a (third!) concept of etherealization, which is (roughly) not quite a materialization (ISBN 9781564597762 pp. 40).
Since our dematerialization article covers at least Fuller, that seems to be the appropriate place to redirect to right now. Yes, it's confusing and imperfect, since the target doesn't (yet) explain Mumford and Toynbee and it isn't the right place at all to cover the spiritualists' concept. But perfection is not required and at least it doesn't tell the reader the downright wrong information that this is Fuller's concept. Of course, this is no prejudice against writing about the spiritualist's concept here (albeit that that seems better discussed in some larger context), or making some kind of disambiguation article distinguishing amongst this lot, in the future. Uncle G (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I don't see the article going beyond a definition. If the problems being discussed can be fixed, transwiki first. --Pnm (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original correct meaning of etherealization seems to be "the act of making (something) wikt:ethereal", which is a dictdef, but "etherealization" seems to have been found a derivative meaning as a technical term in a computer language called CORBA. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per precedent that villages are inherently notable — especially if Hitler of all people was born in one of them. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Braunau am Inn[edit]

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

The only reason we have an article is because Adolf Hitler was born here although no references exist on the article to verify that, yet alone does this article have any at all. If this article can gain sources, then Fucking, Austria can relish in joy. SixthAtom (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This article is about one of the oldest cities in Austria, as well as being the birthplace of Adolf Hitler. Yes, it needs work - expanding and referencing - but no way should it be deleted.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If an article of a notable topic, like a city that dates back to the 9th Century and has a population of over 17,000, doesn't yet have sources, put a sources tag on it. WP:AfD states clearly "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist" and "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD" (boldface not mine but in the guideline). By the nom's last sentence, this looks like a violation of WP:POINT.--Oakshade (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This nomination is a bad one. It is quite clear that a city of this size and history should have an article. Oakshade is spot. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep The nominator can be forgiven for being new here, but the usual outcome is that articles about any city are kept. Even if that weren't the policy, though, this is probably one of the most notable small towns in history. Anyone who has ever read a book about Hitler knows about Braunau am Inn. Be prepared to have this nomination booed off the stage in the AfD Theatre. Mandsford 00:56, 5 January 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John McCormack (American boxer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John McCormack (American boxer)

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

The only "evidence" that this person existed is a unsubstantiated story in Lenny McLean's autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallicrow (talk • contribs)

Delete I could find information about a Scottish boxer with this name, but nothing about any notable American boxer. Cullen328 (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on the sketchy available information, McCormack was a bare knuckle fighter and unlikely to have been in any significant sanctioned boxing events. BoxRec has entries for an Australian Jack McCormack, a Scottish John McCormack, and an Irish John Young McCormack but not for an American John McCormack boxing during the time period claimed in the article. The only mention appears to be in Lenny McLean's autobiography which is referenced in the article with no page number. Google Books doesn't provide a preview but I did find this which indicates that Lenny McLean likely did make mention of McCormack in his book, but that does not establish notability and there is no other coverage that I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find any sources for this boxer. KVIKountry (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rock 'n' Roll Ralphs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rock 'n' Roll Ralphs

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

I changed it from prod to AFD after finding some local news sources on the subject, but discounting passing mentions and such I could only, there's very little in reliable sourcing that talks directly about the subject. Delete Secret ^account 22:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual branches of chain supermarkets aren't notable, even if unspecified famous folks sometimes shop there. Though the presence of local mentions might mean a line in Ralphs could be appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides local coverage mentioned by the nom, the national and Boston-based Christian Science Monitor and the non-local Tampa Tribune and Dallas Morning News have also given some non-trivial more-than-passing-mentions coverage to this establishment. [1][2][3] --Oakshade (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Tampa Tribune article (I have access) is a passing mention comes from the AP article and talks about Drew Carey not the supermarket, I don't have access to nither the Dallas Morning News (which I think talks about the neighborhood) and I think I have access to the Christian Science Monitor, I have to check if I do. Secret ^account 15:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge - This is part of a larger company, and if there are notable locations of this company, and seeing as how it doesn't really meet WP:GNG on its own, then it's reference-able content should be moved into a section of its parent company. For instance if an In & Out Burger location would get a massive amount of coverage for its openning in local or regional reliable sources, that doesn't make that one location notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ralphs, if any sources can be found. Will Beback talk 01:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - found coverage in the Dallas Morning News and Tampa Tribune. KVIKountry (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That coverage are not significant of the subject Ibluffsocall (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any fame (notoriety) is entirely second-hand; or do we allow any article about a shop that has been visited by a celebrity with his/her PR person in tow ? I don't believe so or otherwise we would have almost every shop in Hollywood, London, Dubai, Sidney, Adwick upon Dearne etc with an article here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:42, 11 January 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, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Allen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James F. Allen

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

Nomination withdrawn Sources are not always apparent and I saw little evidence this was notable but this has now been proved to meet requirements.

Non notable BLP. No hits in google books. Few other if any at all from his website that I can find.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes multiple counts of WP:PROF with a named chair at a research university, elected fellowship of an academic society, journal editorship and papers with citation counts (according to Google Scholar) of 5659, 2262, 489, 396, 337 etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Easily passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF. Only one criterion is needed for a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles also need to pass Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability and have multiple reliable publications discussing this individual aside from papers they may have published. It is still an unsourced BLP.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources to the article. It was not difficult. Did you even try? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do a google book search generally which didn't reveal a single source. Maybe I should try google scholar for academics in future.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, barely any credible fruckin hits actually about James F. Allen. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it's difficult with that search to find sources about Allen, because they're obscured by all the publications that are by him rather than about him. In cases like this it works better to include in the query some of the other specifics from the article that one is trying to source (and also of course to look for scholar, web, and news sources rather than assuming that everything can be found in books). But the nominator's "no hits in Google books" opening statement remains mystifying, because the problem here isn't no hits, it's too many hits. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for reasons above. Incompetent nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 January 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. 6:50, 11 January 2011 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Paragon (guild)" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragon (guild) (2nd nomination)) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon (guild)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of a recently deleted page, less than 24 hours after its previous AfD was resolved. Denied CSD G4 due to the fact that there are indeed more sources present. ~~None~~ Few of the included sources can be verified in English. Article cannot demonstrate how the guild is notable. Clear violation of WP:PROMOTION, Wikipedia is not a place to advertise for your guild. Article author has some WP:OWNERSHIP issues, perhaps some WP:COI as well. RoninBK _{T C} 22:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Corrected a point above, some of the links are indeed in English. -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4: it may have additional sources, but I fail to believe it's any more notable than it was yesterday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really confused. Why people say only 1 source is enough, if it's not true? Now it has 13 sources (6 english + 7 finnish), so may I please know why people are against this article or against the sources? --Pek (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoever told you that one source is enough, is clearly mistaken. The WP:GNG clearly states that multiple non-trivial mentions are required. Secondly, as Scoops has pointed out below, many of the links provided do not qualify as "non-trivial." Thirdly, and probably most important, is that you haven't proven why this needs to be included in an encyclopedia. Pek, you are clearly too involved with the subject to see the obvious consensus. -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Non-trivial? Could you explain that word in some "more simple" words? Sorry if I don't understand everything it's just that my home language isn't English. Also, I have never heard that anyone would explain in Finnish Wikipedia that "Why should this article be here?", if the article has the notable sources the subject doesn't matter, does English Wikipedia have totally different rules or whats up with that? --Pek (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do not delve too much into other versions of Wikipedia, but I can tell you that the English version does not constitute listing rosters for World of Warcraft guilds and saying that they're important to Finnish culture. Furthermore, the fact that you disregarded our consensus and recreated the page on a whim does not impress for this page to be in existence. DarthBotto_talk•cont 01:57, 05 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't make the second vote because it would increase articles chances for staying, I did it because we had conversation going on with user Hobit, who didn't answer important question before article was deleted. --Pek (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I read the article right now, there are 12 sources. Two of them are serious news agencies. One did a 2 minute clip on the group. I don't think that's very significant coverage. The other has a six minute audio piece. I have trouble calling that significant, too. A third source looks like a tech blog (translations are a bit rough), which I have trouble taking seriously, with it's current front-page story about boobs in Final Fantasy. Between those three, I have trouble calling it "significant coverage from multiple reliable sources". The other 9 sources are press releases/even-less-reliable-blogs. I'd also note that all the coverage seems to be focused on one event: beating the Wrath of the Lich King expansion. It makes me wonder if it might not be better to include a brief mention of them in that article. » scoops “5x5„ 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is only 1 blog, which is not even for sure is it blog or some sort of "blog-interview" and your talking about many blogs? --Pek (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As Finnish i do little summary about those three. YleX is one of Yle's (Finnish national broadcasting company) nationwide radio channels. Btw i guess there was probably longer interview in radio than in web. Easily can be counted as point for notability. Nelonen is one of four Finland's main tv-channels and mentioning their prime time news is kind of relevant also. Edome is also one of finlands big gaming news sites and it can be counted as credit also (in finnish point of view). Wowmagazine (dead tree magazine) and Esport (web magazine) are smaller and can be used as information sources but those aren't so good for reviewing the notability. ----Zache (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I still can't read the sources, but if there is coverage from two serious news agencies and the coverage consists of a 2-minute video clip and a 6 minute audio clip, I'd say we've got multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. If the 3rd identified good source is actually reliable we're in solid shape. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And given the non-promotional language and general stubby nature of the article, I really don't see a promotion problem here. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can read a lot of the sources. I'd say the English sources pretty much get us there. We have a number of RSes (though not all indpendent) saying that this is the best at what they do in the world. The sources meet WP:N and the group is clearly notable in the English sense of the word. I mean companies are paying to bring them to the US so people can meet and watch them. That's pretty impressive really. Hobit (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already settled this- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragon (guild). If anything should be done beyond deleting this page again, it should be addressing the creator about disregarding the consensus and reasoning behind the original page's deletion. DarthBotto_talk•cont 02:00, 05 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was deleted for not meeting notability requirements and there was a request in said discussion for the article to be sourced. It is now created anew as a sourced article and should be looked at again. I've no problem with this being deleted again (though I think it shouldn't be, I don't need to be right), but to accuse the creator of bad faith isn't appropriate. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability isn't the only reason that the article was being considered for deletion. There's also the question of whether this meets the question of What Wikipedia is not. Throwing sheer numbers of dubious sources at the article does not answer the question of whether it is appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Unfortunately the closing admin didn't add a closing summary, so we can't say for sure what the ultimate reason was. -- RoninBK _{T C} 02:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess I missed that, what part of WP:NOT do you feel applies here? I didn't see anything in the first AfD, but I sometimes I miss things... Hobit (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. World of Warcraft is so big game that best wow teams also should be included. --Zache (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately "is so big game" does not address Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and so is irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some prove that World of Warcraft is quite popular game indeed (Xfire statics): Mar 2009, Feb 2009, Jan 2009, Dec 2008, Nov 2008, Oct 2008, Sep 2008, Aug 2008, Jul 2008, Jun 2008, May 2008, Apr 2008, Mar 2008, Feb 2008, Jan 2008, Dec 2007, Nov 2007, Oct 2007, Sep 2007, Aug 2007, Jul 2007, Jun 2007, May 2007, Apr 2007, Mar 2007, Feb 2007, Jan 2007, Dec 2006, Nov 2006, Oct 2006, Sep 2006, Aug 2006, Jul 2006, Jun 2006, May 2006, Apr 2006, Mar 2006, Feb 2006 and Jan 2006. As you can see World of Warcraft tops every list available (#1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pek (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing World of Warcraft's notability here. The point being made is that notability is not inherited. Just because WoW is notable does not mean everything associated with it is notable. -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that if the gaming community comes from game like World of Warcraft it is more notable if it would come from some very unknown and unpopular game. Anyway as stated earlier Paragon is very well known around World of Warcraft, and the fact that the work is done by 35 player out of 12 million should ring a bell in everyones mind. --Pek (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Raiding guilds, while apparently a mentionable part of the game, are not notable for me. The fact that these raiding guilds have been ranked is notable maybe, and if there happened to be such a thing as official rading guild rankings or something like that, the fact could be mentioned in the main WoW article. Individual winners, however, don't count as notable for me, no matter how much the Finnish media likes to mention anything and everything Finnish that has gained even a little fame. Pitke (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"no matter how much the Finnish media likes to mention anything and everything Finnish that has gained even a little fame.", you probably don't realize how hard it is to actually be a number #1 World of Warcraft guild in the world. I wouldn't say that being number #1 guild (35 players from 12 million) is a little fame. --Pek (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine it's about as hard as being the number one plumber in New York City. But even though NYC is a very notable city of over 8 million, the plumber probably wouldn't merit a Wikipedia page. -- RoninBK _{T C} 04:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that world rank #1 is more valuable then state rank #1 and the plumber will never have a sources, these guys do have them. --Pek (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add that being plumber is not same thing as being extremely competitive World of Warcraft player. --Pek (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more addition that not all of the 8 million population are plumbers, but we are talking here about 12 million actual players in-game, so that is very bad example of yours. --Pek (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure if you're following his comparison. Regardless, attempting to find international information on this subject is extremely limited, apart from their official website. Electronic sports teams that constitute several divisions of well-renowned and public, (not anonymous), players have few pages as it is, due to the fact that multiple sources, magazines, news broadcasts, multi-million dollar websites, etc. cover their existence and are easy to find. Besides Blizzard giving out achievements for successful World of Warcraft players, supportive evidence of this subject's notoriety is in high question. Look, if you had re-created this page after it was deleted and made it seem legitimate and neatly done, your peers would certainly be more lenient in their judgment. However, this page is a few short questions that state that it is popular because of World of Warcraft, nothing more. You have had time to look for sources, but you rather have been disregarding the common consensus of everyone else. There's not much more to be said, considering this page was already deleted. DarthBotto_talk•cont 05:10, 07 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pek said, being plumber is not same thing as being extremely competitive World of Warcraft player. He is correct. In a typical 40-hour-a-week year, a plumber would spend 2000 hours on his craft. To be among the top plumbers in the city, nation or world, one imagines he'd need 10-15 years of experience. In some places, plumbers are required to pass examinations to prove their knowledge in order to be certified, so there may well be more than the 20-30 thousand hours required. Additionally, plumbers are actually paid for plumbing - some in the US charge almost what (inexpensive) lawyers charge. So, Pek is correct. Being an extremely competitive WoW player is not the same as being a plumber. Being a plumber is harder, more profitable and more useful. I mean, has anyone ever had to call a WoW player to stop their home from being destroyed? --Habap (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say keep it if it weren't for the fact he made it -so- quickly after the last deletion. Although there are more sources I still do not believe that the guild is notable enough in English terms. Perhaps on the Finnish Wikipedia but right now it has no notability to be on the English one. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 13:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment on top of this page: "I didn't make the second vote because it would increase articles chances for staying, I did it because we had conversation going on with user Hobit, who didn't answer important question before article was deleted.". --Pek (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion I'm afraid we're having something lost in translation, I don't quite understand fully what you mean by 'second vote'. And even if Hobit did not answer your question and even if you had waited to create the article to find more sources. I still do not believe it fits properly in what a article should be. The guild is clearly notable but to have it's own page for it seems a bit far in anybodies mind. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I made myself unclear, I meant second nomination by second vote. --Pek (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would like to make an important note that there was actually a one more vote in Swedish language Wikipedia at September 2010, which ended keeping the article in sv:Wikipedia. --Pek (talk) 21:41, 5 January 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) 19:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources either don't meet requirements in reliability, or do not provide significant coverage for the guild itself. --Teancum (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We're not a promo site for nerds. Sources are not sufficiently independent from the subject, these are just a few gaming sites. There are many reasons to exclude this junk, and no really valid ones to retain it so far. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources include many unreliable blogs, but they also include Joystiq and OnRPG, both of which we generally consider reliable. The topic therefore meets the standard of significant coverage in reliable independent sources and should be kept. There's nothing inherently non-notable about gaming guilds, it's just that they don't generally get significant coverage. This one has, and is therefore notable. Issues with article quality can be addressed through normal editing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OnRPG has not been deemed reliable nor situational. In fact, it seems that the current consensus is that it is not reliable. --Teancum (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on current English article sources -- OnRPG is currently under consideration as a reliable source, but general consensus is thus far is that it's unreliable. The Republic of Gamers link is a site run by the company Asus, and so may be seen as a WP:SPS to promote their hardware as their about us page (and pretty much every article on the site) seems to imply Joystiq is a situational source and thus reliability of the author should be demonstrated. Normally I wouldn't question this, but Matt Low seems to have some of experience. I wouldn't necessarily call him reliable, but I don't know that I'd say he's unreliable either - so it could go either way depending on the thoughts of those who know about establishing author reliability. The assembly.org link is extremely short, and so could only be used after notability has been established. I have no further opinion on the matter - I'm just commenting on the sources. --Teancum (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete (vote changed from above) - Thank you, Teancum. It appears you are correct that consensus is against OnRPG as a reliable source. This being the case, there is no evidence of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and as such the article must be deemed non-notable and deleted. Vote changed accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:25, 11 January 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 and redirect Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Pletten[edit]

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

The subject was the Vice Presidential candidate for the Prohibition Party's 2004 & 2008 US election campaigns! Before you go thinking that this provides some inherent level of notability, be aware that the combined number of votes for Pletten's tickets was under 2600, about 0.001% of the roughly 253 million votes cast in the two elections. More importantly, Pletten does not seem to be the subject of independent coverage from reliable sources[4][5] and, thus, doesn't meet WP:BIO. This WP:BLP, unsourced since June 2008, should be deleted or perhaps redirected to Prohibition Party. — Scientizzle 21:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prohibition Party#Electoral history where he is already listed. The article could then be easily re-created if reliable sources can be found.--JayJasper (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jay above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REMLOX[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of software. E. Fokker (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this article, I feel compelled to respond. The argument that this article references a "non-notable piece of software" viloates the guidlines established by Wikipedia for deletion, as no evidence is given to prove that it is non-notable. Just because Ms. Fokker has not heard of the software, does not make it not-notable. As the sources in the article demonstrate, the software has gained recognition within the industry. While some of the data referenced in the article comes directly from the company's website, the references to news coverage and literary material comes from sites independent of the developer. Much of the lack of coverage in "mainstream" news is due to the reletive youth of the technology utilized in this software. While Ms. Fokker has much experience as a Wikipedian, her opinion that the software is non-notable should not be considered the consensus view.

Additionally, item 10 under "Before nominating an article for deletion" on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion page states:

"10.If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."

While Ms. Fokker may believe that this article appears to sound like a press release, I would argue that any encyclopedic article on a product could be interpreted as seemign like a press release. Sufficient opportunity to develop this article has not been provided, as it was made AfD within minutes of being posted. Dustin.sachs (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, apparent conflict of interest judging from a Google search of the creator's username. The burden of proof is for notabilty, (through substantial coverage in reliable sources), there is no need to prove that it's not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN per Hairhorn. Looking over the sources as of right now (last edit) 3 seem to be company sponsored. Ref 4 sounds good until you look at the about page for the site and you see this "EPR Network (EPR stands for express press release) is one of the nation’s largest press release distribution networks on Web." Also, the PA Bar cite (ref 5) looks fairly trivial. I think this is a snowball close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerillero (talk • contribs) 04:55, 5 January 2011

Delete Firstly, there is a severe lack of reliable independent sources (I have checked and confirmed Guerillero's account of the references). Secondly, the article is written entirely in promotional terms. Non-notable and spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page was modeled after other pages that have had success within Wikipedia (see Encase or Microsoft). Nobody here has been able to demonstrate how the article about this software is any more promotional than the sites I have listed. Both pieces of software were new at some point in time, and the lack of media coverage should not be considered in removal from this site. There are many things in the encyclopedia that lacked widestream coverage, but are included because they existed and were cutting edge or revolutionary. It would seem to me that in article about aspects of specialized industries, someone familiar with the industry should judge the notability of the article prior to removal from Wikipedia. How many people on Wikipedia know te intricate details of what a Coronary artery bypass surgery producedure is? Yet, this has been allowed to remain on Wikipedia with simply a request for citations for verification. It is my contention that deletion of this article is premature as other alternatives have not been been given sufficient time to be exhausted.38.110.205.163 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 38.110.205.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What other articles exist is of limited relevance: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are specific notability criteria that this page does not meet (and in its current version it may qualify for speedy deletion as spam). If you think there are sources out there, please add them to the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is a problem I am facing daily as I work on the broad Digital forensics topic. Most of these tools are lightly used, have little or no critical commentary and no academic coverage. Currently only the really mainstream tools (EnCase, for example) get enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. This is a pretty lesser known tool (I don't know anyone mainstream that uses it, though have heard of it) so I do not think it is possible to establish critical coverage at this time. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 6 January 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. Courcelles 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whispering to Witches[edit]

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

Non notable book by non notable author. No awards, no references, no statistics - no nothing. Myosotis Scorpioides 21:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The BBC has covered it here. Google News also shows some reviews behind pay walls. The bulk of the article looks like a copy-paste of a book review especially with the recommendation at the end. That will need some serious copyediting. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added several references. The book has been reviewed by the BBC, reprinted multiple times, and distributed in at least 12 countries [6]. You were right, Whpq, the bulk of the article was a cut-and-paste from the book's front flap; I deleted it. It's now a stub - but a referenced, notable stub. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it needs expansion and plot, but it's notable. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dilu[edit]

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

Notability is unproven. Is a horse in a semi-fictional historical epic really deserving of its own article? Verifiability is dubious. I do not see relevant hits in Google Scholar for "Hex Mark". Clearly a non-RS Wiki about a computer game is no use as a reference yet this is where the article has been cut and pasted pretty much verbatim. I did try to redirect this a couple of times but the author clearly objects and now I am not even sure the title is right. Is the horse called "Dilu", "Dílú mǎ" or "Hex Mark"? Hex Mark is used throughout the article. If the article name is wrong we don't even need a redirect. I now think we should just delete this mess. DanielRigal (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability given. No outside sourcing. Google provides no Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Trekkie. other articles mentioned at editorial discretion Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet International[edit]

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

In ~two years since previous AfD, no appreciable expansion to include substantiation of notability through citations to significant coverage in third-party sources. Web search (and perusal of suggests books at previous AfD) don't bring up any such significant coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trekkie. I would have assumed the world's largest Star Trek fan club would be notable, but I'm not seeing much either. Seems a much better merge candidate than a deletion candiate though, as the Trekkie article barely mentions organised clubs, and should cover them in more detail. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this is the 2nd nomination, it should be fixed to include the link to the first one. I'd do it myself, but I am not experienced enough in working with the code in AFD's. :( ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here's a link to it if it helps: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/STARFLEET_International I guess the caps difference confused the system. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along with Starfleet International Conference to Trekkie. The activities section there is a more appropriate place for fan sites and projects. Jørdan 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following Star Trek Welcommittee, FedCon and Starfleet Command (fan group) articles would be similarly comfortable here. Jørdan 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User:Admhawk errantly posted the following at the previous AfD page: >>I am just wondering where this warning was last week? It 1-7-2011 and never seen this 'nomination for deletion'. If the reasons for deletion were take seriously here then half the articles, no 2/3rds of the article on Wikipedia should be deleted. I had recently edited and replaced the entire narrative (as the person in charge by the Office of the STARFLEET Historian) and did not see this deletion nomination. --Admhawk (talk) 7:48 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)<<

The content replacement was not an improvement over the previous state insofar as Wikipedia content and sourcing guidelines are concerned. Thinking about an article as a "narrative" is in itself oddball, and Admhawk's responsibilities within the club make his contributions iffy under WP:COI (but perhaps explain why the article so firmly reads like an ad). --EEMIV (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Admhawk might not actually want any version of this article that he does not "maintain" to sit at Wikipedia.[7][8]. --EEMIV (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. "The office of the Starfleet historian"? Come on, this is a grown up encyclopedia not MySpace. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camden County College Lindback Award Recipients[edit]

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

List of recipients for a non-notable award. SnottyWong ^speak 17:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 20:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence has been provided that this award is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanbo[edit]

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

Prod and prod2 "declined" by an admin placing a hangon. I'm stunned.

In any event, there are little to no sources to be found anywhere. Someone added a book source, but a thorough search of Google Books and plain Google for "tanbo -weapon" turns up almost nothing beyond the single source already in the article — in fact, the hits are so few that Google autocorrects to "tambo". The declining admin said that he found sources, but this (no author credits), this (an open wiki) and this (a site that allows playing Tanbo online) are in no way reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no sources to be found anywhere" and "the single source already in the article" would appear to be contradictory phrases. The search arguments that I used were Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, finding the couple of book pages referenced in the article and a passing mention in another book. I haven't examined the general web search results in detail because I have no idea whether any of the sites found are reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified argument. Also, among the first pages of your Google search, I still find nothing resembling a reliable source. A couple pages in one book and a one-sentence mention in another certainly do not constitute non-trivial third-party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first book hit is merely game instruction (the whole book is just rules of various games). There's no meaningful coverage of the topic. The second book hit is even less. Google search returns the site of the creator, forums, wikis, and a site whose domain registration has expired. None of the sites are reliable, nor do they have anything more than "It's a game created by Mark Steere, and this is how you play it." Absent reliable sources that demonstrate notability, it must go. » scoops “5x5„ 21:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SWR Mo'bass[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non-notable product, complete with suggested retail price. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 17:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 20:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just one amongst thousands. No assertion of notability, no explanation of significance, no claim of importance, etc. etc. -- œ ^™ 22:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Techready[edit]

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

Non-notable; topic has a very limited audience (Microsoft Employees). Safety Cap (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Some passing references found at Google News but nothing amounting to "significant coverage". In-house conferences do not cut it - not even if the "house" is Microsoft. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senkyōshigo[edit]

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

Has been tagged as Not notable and needing references that appear in reliable third-party publications since June 2009. Every Mormon missionaries who has to learn a foreign language end up mixing his own language and that language for a while. That doesn’t make it a new language or notable. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Interlanguage. There is a reliable source, but I agree that this is hardly unique to missionaries in Japan. Cnilep (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-How would you do this? I'm all for the idea, but I'm not sure how to go about it. I can't see how to include the info into the new article. Once I get a clear idea, I would be willing to change the delete tag to a merge tag.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are only two sentences plus an example on the current page, this could either become a subsection or simply cited as one example. However if, as 208.81.184.4 implies below, this is more like a pidgin than typical learner interlanguage, my merger target might not be entirely appropriate. I'll have to think more about it. Cnilep (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 05:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 05:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One big difference between other "missionary languages" & Senkyōshigo is that Senkyōshigo has been described in detail in a linguistics academic journal. Senkyōshigo isn't something that "happens for a while" on LDS missions to Japan; it's a self-consistent lingua franca that has existed for decades, and has defied changes in the numbers & organization structures of the LDS missions in Japan, as well as various attempts to discourage its use &/or kill it by mission presidents & other priesthood authorities. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have additional third-party sources that document its history and extent of use? There is one source cited now, but those are big claims to make on the basis of a single article plus primary sources. Cnilep (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Contrary to my previous comment, I have found no sources calling the variety an example of interlanguage. Smout (1988) suggests that it resembles a pidgin, but argues that it is not a pidgin as such. On the other hand, the only sources I have found discussing the variety are Smout and three discussions of problem case for defining varieties that cite Smout's lone paper on Senkyoshigo (Gorlach 1996, Grant 2001, and Golokov 2003). Cnilep (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 20:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sure many foreigners in Japan have mixed Japanese words into English speech, but that doesn't make it a "pidgin" or notable enough to be documented here. --DAJF (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

115 AH[edit]

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

This article contains essentially no useful information, and is one of a series of such that (for the most part) appear to have been generated for no useful purpose other than to provide a calendar year conversion and a set of section headers. it has been in existance since 2006 but has had no useful additions. I attempted to PROD it, but the PROD was removed by an anonymous editor with the statement, "rm PROD - this might better go through AfD instead". In checking similar articles for PRODs, I find those were de-PROD'd with the suggestion to take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years, which I did here.

This may fall into speedy delete under criteria A1 A3, but I'm following the de-PROD recommendation for this page to gather a broader consensus before attempting a speedy delete of the others. RJH (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. I think the Islamic years ought to be disambiguation pages, with one line of text that explains they mean periods within the Islamic calendar, and then lead to the corresponding years CE, in this case presumably 733 or 734. I don't think it's a good idea to delete them entirely because someone who reads "Event X took place in 115 AH" might well want to look up what "115 AH" means in an encyclopaedia; Wikipedia should give them a bit more help than just a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 18:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure you can create a disambiguation page consisting of a single item.—RJH (talk)
  - No, you'd need several. In this case, three: 733, 734 and a mention of Islamic calendar.—S Marshall T/C 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, well there are already red links for the decades and existing pages for each of the centuries. I'm not clear how adding another multi-year page (or pages) would be of benefit.—RJH (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have, as yet, nothing to say about the substantive issue of keeping or deleting, must must point out that this is about as far as you can get from being a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1, as the context is crystal-clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it should have said A3, but that may also be iffy since it contains a single meaningful sentence. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 20:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment another year article has since also been nominated for deletion. 64.229.103.44 (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to 773 Common Era year. This is about the same year and I can not think of anything that would fit here can not be placed there. In the CE article 115 AH should be mentioned however... L.tak (talk) 21:47, 9 January 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 Objections made at the time of the nomination noted a dearth of sourcing, and User:Roscelese worked on fixing that problem. There has been only one !delete since then, with an opinion that the additions were not "significant independent sourcing", although even that suggested an alternative course as a merge. Mandsford 03:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family Fellowship[edit]

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

Fails notability, has only original research, and uses only a single primary source.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of independant and reliable references which would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG and also possibly WP:CORP. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this looks like an attempt by the Mormon church to censor anything that they disagree with - just as they are doing with Temple Riders. Wikipedia is not censored. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Biker Biker need to WP:Assume good faith and not assume all LDS members are the same. If you ask any commenter at Talk:Undergarment#Time_to_review_Temple_Garment_image I am active in trying to maintain WP:NOTCENSORED when It comes to LDS article. I nominated this article for one reason, and I still feel it fails Notability as stated. To keep an article only because a LDS member nominated it for deletion Bad faith. I stand my by nomination, Fails notability, has only original research, and uses only a single primary source. Addationally It also fails WP:PROMOTION since this club is so un-Notable the best anyone can come up with is one line and a link to the website of the group.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment noted, but we'll have to agree to disagree and I stand by my comments. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, here are a few other sources I found from a cursory look [9] [10] [11] And Deseret News periodically covers their forums. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added more third-party references to the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't check out the sources, but unless the article is a total hoax the group seems to have attracted enough attention to be notable. Far more than most Internet community groups of the kind. Jaque Hammer (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't check out the sources then how do you know that this group has attracted enough attention to be notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Roscelese and a quick Google Books search. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 19:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move this is limp as an independent article, but worth keeping and moving to [[Religious motorcycle clubs]]. As an independent article, it deserves deletion, but compiled it doesn't. tedder (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment did you mean this as a vote on Temple Riders? Family Fellowship isn't a motorcycle club. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I got distracted by something shiny, saw the relist notice, and assumed I knew what I was talking about. tedder (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge/Redirect to Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Doesn't really have the significant independent sourcing needed for an article. There are many references found at Google News but they are in passing - as in "so and so, a leader of the group Family Fellowship, said..." --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 10 January 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 Busch Memorial Stadium#History. In that the other two outcomes (Yankee Stadium, Tiger Stadium) referred to "Final game at...", this will be renamed "Final game at old Busch Stadium" for redirect purposes. Mandsford 04:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last game at old Busch Stadium[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final game at Yankee Stadium and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Detroit Tigers game at Tiger Stadium, there is consensus not to have stand alone articles for the final game at a stadium. In this case, I'd say there is no content for a merge and that there is no need for a special section merged onto Busch Stadium. Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless secondary sources can be provided that tell us why this game is important or interesting. Right now it is OR for the article to just give the statistics of the game and the fact it was the last game and expect us to put the two together. Jaque Hammer (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Busch Memorial Stadium#History per the precedents of the two AfDs cited in the nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Nothing inherently notable here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 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, Dusti^*poke* 19:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May as well redirect. I'm not sure that it's a terribly likely search term, but it may be and redirects are cheap. » scoops “5x5„ 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable game, only a box score which violates WP:NOT#STATS and unlikely redirect term. Secret ^account 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Busch Memorial Stadium#History. It's hard for me to see any reason why the last game at a stadium is particularly notable enough for an article of its own. Blueboy 96 23:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green ink[edit]

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

WP is not a dictionary. This is a very minor jargon expression. Jaque Hammer (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An interesting exposition, but Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 19:53, 4 January 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. we don't seem to have picked up any sources at all for this so policy is clear Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeboat Foundation[edit]

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

The concern is Notability when evaluating against the standards at WP:notability (organizations). The organization has a decent website, over a 1000 contributors in committees, including 2 Nobel Prize winners, and a blog has appeared on it which is on the New York times website. Furthermore, there is substantial info on its founder (Eric Klien). However, about the organization itself, no reliable sources seem to be available from a google search. For notability of Non-commercial organizations which are international in scope, still it is required that "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources", which do not exist. L.tak (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete. There is a real lack of notability, most of the references are from the foundation's own website, and the couple that are not, merely have a small lifeboat foundation symbol in a corner. Passionless (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its is damned hard to find anything from any 3P mainstream press about them. What does that tell us??? BobbieCharlton (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Hard to find anything in mainstream press? I found this after about 5 seconds. Does the New York Times count as mainstream?

Consider this quote, 20th July 2010:

"Plenty of people agree with Mr. Klien [chairman of the Lifeboat Foundation] or at least consider efforts to tame technology and confront catastrophes worth exploring. Google gave $450, and Hewlett-Packard is on the donor list too, handing over $1,081. Sun Microsystems gave $1,000. Professors, technology executives and people tied to various industries are also among the contributors."

The New York Times reference is also mentioned on Ray Kurzweil's AI website. Both Ray and his website are very notable.
KurzweilAI.net has also mentioned the Lifeboat Foundation on another occasion, Jan 1st 2009, http://www.kurzweilai.net/stephen-hawking-named-lifeboat-foundation-2008-guardian-award-winner
Wired is also a noteworthy source, October 29, 2007: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10/apocalypse-soon/

86.184.247.59 (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]

Let me give a point by point reaction to the sources you gave. I was aware of them all, but thought they would not count as wp:reliable sources. As:

The New York Times "article" is actually a blog (posted on blogs.nytimes.com) and thus show the individual opinion of an (not well-known writer). Blogs are generally excluded as reliable sources, even if they are blogging websites linked to a very notable newspaper
The article on Kurzweiliai is a copy of the website-text of the lifeboat foundation itself and therefore merely constitutes copy-pasting of a press release. (which is explicitly excluded under WP:notability (organizations).
As for the wired article, that is under blogs, (and then Dangerroom), so a blog again of a non-well-known person. (furthermore, it seems that it is placed under the tag bizarro; which makes it also a bit questionable looking at the entries of that tag.
Furthermore you quote the lifeboat foundation stating that many people give money. Although that might be a good and true thing. The missing problem here is nobability established by external sources. The foundation itself surely is not such an external source, so we can not judge if this is a notable thing (and besides, the large multinational Sun giving only 1000 dollar?). And the 2 nobel prize winners: if they were to give interviews in which the Lifeboat foundation is the main subject, such things might constitute reliable sources, not the foundation stating it has 2 winners in its listings. L.tak (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - found coverage on Kurzweil's site and the New York Times. KVIKountry (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

are you refering to the literal copy of the press release on Kurzweil's site ([this one?)? and the blog on New York Times "NYT"? Or did you find other sources? L.tak (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Griffith[edit]

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

While Ms Griffith appears to write often on the topic of digital embroidery, there does not seem to be any source material written about her, which would be required to meet the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails any WP notability guideline I can think of. Qworty (talk) 08:37, 9 January 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terence "Tramp Baby" Abney[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP about a record producer. He appears to have worked with some notable artists, but no significant coverage found. Another editor thought discussion at AFD was in order so bringing it here. Michig (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete;This appears to be a case of Notable by Association - but the subject itself is not notablable. There are no secondary sources - no musical press coverage, no commentry - this article would appear to seek to establish notability thru Wikipedia. Mark^Dask 12:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still has to meet either WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Varykino[edit]

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

This unsourced article about a fictional country estate makes no claim of notability. Hairyns (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very in-universe, no refs, not notable. --Glimmer721 ^talk 01:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Model (person). One of the things which has begun to annoy me at AfD is the poor quality of commentary. This is strongly illustrated by this AfD; of the 12 commenting users, not a single one has cited policy that I can see (although I commend the nominator on the quality of his initial post). Given the almost complete lack of reliable sources, which nobody, it seems, has tried to remedy, the most appropriate action is to merge. If it is a notable cultural phenomenon it should be included, but nobody here has demonstrated that it is an independently notable cultural phenomenon. Given that most of the useful content has already been merged by User:Roninbk (props for that) there's no problem from my end with someone WP:BOLDly redirecting it. I would ask all users to remember that AfD is not a vote - the strongest weight goes to the user with the strongest argument, and WP:GHITS does not constitute either. Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gravure idol[edit]

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

The article consists of original research as it doesn't have reliable sources and, therefore, doesn't meet the criteria for verifiability or neutral point of view. Doing some search engine tests, I found no reliable sources about this topic in English with Google or using "Gravure" with Google Scholar, or Google News. All Google results point to websites that are not reliable or that are questionable sources. Considering this and that if fails in three of the main content policies, I also don't think that this article has notability to be included in Wikipedia and I believe that the article falls into what Wikipedia is not. Checking the Japanese counterpart, I also noticed that the Japanese article is full of original research and also doesn't provide reliable sources. The English article is essentially covering the same topic that the article Pin-up girl does. In my opinion, Gravure idol fulfills the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Pin-up girl. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Pin-up girl. --DAJF (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gravure idols are a specifically Japanese phenomenon, quite different from pin-up girls. It is hard to find reliable sources because of the huge number of popular photo sites. On the other hand, the fact that there are over 1.6 million Google hits seems to me evidence that they are notable enough. In addition, Wikipedia itself lists over 30 gravure idols, all identified as such. I have added a reference to the recently established Gravure Idol award. There is no reason to merge this with Pin-up girl --- people looking for information about one are unlikely to want the other, and it is wrong to describe a Gravure idol as a pin-up girl. I agree completely that his article would be better with more citations, but to the best of my knowledge the facts are broadly correct and it is clearly notable, so there are no grounds for deletion. Francis Bond (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation added, www.oneinchpunch.net, describes itself as a personal website: not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The award exists, which is the point, and a search turned up a better reference. Francis Bond (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable topic in the Japanese media area - Gravure Idols are definitely not the same as pinup girls and the information in the Pin-up girl article doesn't apply to Gravure Idols in Japan. Merging them would be forcing a Western point of view onto a non-Western phenomenon. The article needs to be improved, not merged or deleted. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google search for 'pin-up girl' gives me the follwing hits with buzzwords: Retro, vintage, Retro Dresses, Pin Up Girl (1944), Retro Model, Classic ... Don't merge a cultural phenomenon from modern 21. Century Japan with something that is perceived in the Western World with these words.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a good-sized article on the Japanese wiki about the term, so it does appear to be a notable item. Probably what needs to be done is someone translates and adds from the JA one. Tabercil (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The size of an article does not determine whether an article is good or not. As I pointed out, the Japanese article, like the English counterpart, is full of original research and it doesn't have reliable sources. It has been tagged by the Japanese editors as containing original research since 2007, so it is not a trustworthy source to make a translation. Jfgslo (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has survived in the Japanese Wikipedia, even though someone tagged it as OR, precisely because it is notable. The Japanese page lists over 20 magazines that carry Gravure Idols (including extremely well read publications like Friday and Shonen Jump) and around 10 competitions involving them. I would say that that is enough evidence for general notability. Francis Bond (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is still there doesn't imply that it's a good article or that it should be kept. On the contrary, it just means that it is non-relevant article that is mostly ignored. And that still doesn't mean that the original research information is in any way usable by the English Wikipedia. The English article must fulfill the criteria of the English Wikipedia, which requires verifiability and notability, regardless of its status in other language versions of Wikipedia. As it is, almost nothing in the Japanese article is usable because it's original research. And Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely existing or being popular does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. That there are Japanese magazines that carry contests with models and call them Gravure Idol, does not imply that Gravure Idol is a topic that has received coverage by itself, it only means that there are contests with models that are called Gravure Idols instead of models, not that there it is topic that has received significant coverage. So far, there is no evidence that Gravure Idol has "Significant coverage" (sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.) Jfgslo (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a substantial cultural phenomenon in Japan. That it bears similarities to the 'classical' pinup girls doesn't necessarily mean it's the same and could be merged away into said article. --bitterMan.lha 09:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse existence with notability. While it may be something popular like a product, it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (apparently not even in Japan), so it fails the general notability guideline and does not qualify to have its own independent article. Jfgslo (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Not quite sure how to proceed on this one. On the one hand, G4's International Sexy Ladies show routinely airs segments showing gravure girls. (Please don't ask how I know that, I was extremely, extremely bored.) On the other, I'm not sure how you would go about using those episodes to establish the notability of the phenomenon, (perhaps starting at http://g4tv.com/sexyladies/ might help) -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it is a substantial cultural phenomenon and is note worthy. Rick lay95 (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)rick_lay95[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see where the merge proponents are coming from, but this is a pretty distinct concept from pin-up girl, as well as (generally) denoting a higher level of celebrity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Higher level according to whom? Which author defined "Gravure Idol" as something intrinsically different than a model? Jfgslo (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental function of a model is to sell clothes or another item the model is wearing or using. By contrast, a gravure idol is essentially selling themselves by way of their own image, and hope people buy their DVDs and so on. In other words, a model sells a brand while a gravure idol essentially IS a brand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, according to whom? All that is original research. And a model (person) is not limited to that definition. In fact, Wikipedia's article about "model" includes "Gravure Idol". There is nothing in the "Gravure Idol" article that justifies its stand-alone existence since almost nothing is referenced and does not meet general notability guideline. Jfgslo (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection is not required. WP:IMPERFECT. No one disagrees that more reliable citations would be better. Francis Bond (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection may not be required but notability and verifiability are. And I believe that there are no reliable sources regarding this subject and that it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, not even in Japan. Instead, it's purely original research and Wikipedia does not publish original thought, so it must be deleted from Wikipedia or merged with another article because the topic does not have notability to have its standalone article. The article has been around since 2006 and it has always been original research, so I don't think there is a need to keep it any longer. Jfgslo (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or perhaps move back) to Model (person)#Gravure idols The sources that I can find, [12] [13] [14](which admittedly appear very blog-like and unreliable as sources,) tend to indicate that the closest western analogue would be a bikini model, not a pin up girl. As it turns out there already is a section header on Model (person) for Gravure idols. Perhaps we should graft this article back into the Model article, until there is sufficient reliable sourcing to support a standalone article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 06:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and BOLDly copied the substance of the article over to the Model (person) page. I have no problem if you want to include the information into Japanese idol as well, (it just seemed easier to me to copy it over to the Model article because there was already a spot set aside for it.) -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to be bold, but I think there is no consensus to merge or delete, so please be careful not to duplicate too much information. Francis Bond (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Japanese idol which itself is a mess, but the generic term Idol has much more coverage in this context. Hobit (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I think we need actual sources but this can come back as soon as someone finds some. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Paul Knapman[edit]

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

Non-notable person. As the coroner in London, Knapman's name appears in many news articles, but the coverage is not about Knapman, but rather about the cases in which he was involved. The only notable coverage about Knapman himself involves an incident in which the coroner's office (and hence Knapman himself) were questioned about the unauthorized removal and subsequent loss of the hands of the victims of the Marchioness disaster. Since this is a relatively minor blip in the overall coverage of that disaster, WP:BLP1E would come into effect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying below a note that was placed on the article's talk page by its creator. The user is new to Wikipedia and probably didn't know where to put his comments. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from talk page: Dear All

If anyone can help me with this article it is my first time. It would appear I am not correctly following the guidelines, as the editors are saying that Dr Paul Knapman is not notable.

Dr Knapman is an expert, published author,that is another notable fact. The articles relating to inquests are highly significant, as Dr. Knapman is presiding over them and is responsible for the process that decides on the cause of death - in his case, over 85,000 deaths have been overseen and ruled upon. As a Coroner, Dr. Knapman also makes significant recommendations, such as the ones made to the Home secretary, Theresa May regarding the shooting of the barrister, Mark Saundrs by members of the Metroploitan Police - BBC News. As a Deputy Lord Lieutenent of Greater London he fulfills duties relating to the monarchy and is entitled to display the letters DL after his name. wiki ino on [Lord Lieutenants] here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_Lieutenant

He also has an entry in Debrett's, which has been a noted source of recognising 'people of significance' for over two centuries. His notable status is very similar to that of judges that preside over signiicant cases (Many judges are featured on Wikipedia)

Any help getting this prominant individual on wikipedia would be most appreciated.

WebManAtTheNetShop (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)WebManAtTheNetShopWebManAtTheNetShop (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probable delete but I'm torn on this one. As noted by Nominator, there are a lot of news hits that are simply quoting him about a case; that does not amount to "significant coverage". Then there are his publications at Google Scholar, probably not enough or heavily enough cited to qualify him under WP:ACADEMIC. On the other hand (and Nominator noted this too), he himself has been the subject of some news coverage of a negative type, for example a BBC article about a case where he was criticized for unnecessarily removing the hands of victims of a disaster, and criticism in the House of Commons for that and other actions including a suggestion that he be fired. These are significant issues, but I feel that the BBC report may be a case of WP:ONEEVENT and the Parliamentary commentary is not a WP:Reliable Source in the usual sense. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 9 January 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 - Indonesian vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Jahiliyah[edit]

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

This is in Indonesian, but it translates to just vulgar stuff. Check out the google translation. I think it is better to delete it. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 18:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with Nom. Google Translate of current revision as well as initially posted revision reveals this to be pure attack page stuff, and somewhat vulgar at that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1; tagged as such -- and not because it isn't in English, but because Google Translate reveals that this is really just a joke article; there's no such venue as Ignorance Hill National Stadium. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Woods[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This WP:BLP has been inadequately sourced since 2004. The subject is a thrice unelected candidate from a minor Canadian political party and the publisher of an apparently non-notable magazine, Global Outlook,[15][16] a status that doesn't seem likely to meet most editors' standards of "inherent notability". There is a general lack of reliable, independent sources discussing the subject.[17][18] You can view the subject's own version of the Wiki biography in this revision, as written by IanBDWoods (talk · contribs), which doesn't really offer much more to work with for WP:BIO. — Scientizzle 17:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Failed political candidate, non-notable activist, non-notable editor/publisher. Nothing significant found at Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 10 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Amendola[edit]

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

Self-promotion for unknown "artist". Damiens.rf 17:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. I don't see how this is self-promotion, but this is an unsigned artist that has never charted. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might not be self promotional but sure looks promotional. Lacks independent reliable coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. 1 gnews hit [news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Matty+Amendola%22] LibStar (talk) 16:10, 7 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coimbatore cultural academy[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non-notable business which hosts extracurricular activities for children in India. Created by a SPA with an obvious conflict of interest. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable training class. Article is written as pure advertisement.--Sodabottle (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, fails WP:ORG. Salih (talk) 15:26, 11 January 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 - copyvio and nn-bio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coen van Oostrom[edit]

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

Copyright Violation Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations can be speedied. I tagged it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15 Songs For You[edit]

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

While the article calls this an "official" album, it is not listed at the official Christina Aguilera website (see here). A search for information finds that the "album" is available at download sites of questionable validity. I can find no third-party coverage of the album except at minor blogs, which is suspicious for an artist of such fame. I suspect that this is a fan-created package that only looks valid because it has spread around the download-o-sphere. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After searching Google, "fan-created package" seems to be right. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Activity 3[edit]

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

None of the information in this article is sourced, and after some intense searching, all the info I can find is that the movie has been greenlit. I suggest mirroring the scant information available to Paranormal Activity 2, as is custom for sequels with little info until much more information comes to light. Angryapathy (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly incubate) per WP:TOOSOON. The IMDb entry only has one cast member confirmed as of now. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the time being. I'm sure this will warrant an article later on, but right now nothing provided on the article affirms any of the facts asserted, and it seems unlikely that anything will be able to for a while. When that time comes, of course, it's entirely possible a great many of the aforementioned facts will be changed. - Vianello (Talk) 23:58, 8 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are yaaroo![edit]

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

I can find no evidence at all of notability. No sources are cited, and web searches produce mostly Wikipedia, pages reflecting Wikipedia, blogs, Facebook, etc. In addition the article does seem to have somewhat promotional aspects. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Less than 20 Ghits, and everything after the first seven are false positives. In addition, the article was created by the writer of the film. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable amateurish film. Salih (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that film meets any of the criteria in WP:NF nor WP:GNG. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:54, 10 January 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. AfD is not a vote. The strength of arguments dictates the weight given to them, and simply saying WP:ITSNOTABLE is not sufficient. The concerns of the nominator have neither been addressed nor disproved, and it has not been shown that the subject of this article passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Setlist TV[edit]

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: ((subst:spa|username))

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

Non-notable community-access television program. No significant coverage available to indicate notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This program is of note. The program broadcasts on two major cable networks in a major metropolitan city. It is a music performance program which featurs musical acts of note. Acts who already have wiki pages, etc. This program received thousands of television and web viewers each week. The page is still being edited to include citat--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)ions, references, links, etc.--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note, as you search for sources, that Facebook pages and Youtube videos are generally not considered reliable sources. Evidence of significant coverage from independent sources will be needed. I was unable to find any evidence of such coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are living in a digital age. Hence the existence of Wikipedia. You may not view youtube & facebook as reliable sources but these links represent the artists, creatos, crew, and producers involved with the production of a cable television & web program. The point of the program that this wikipedia page represents is that it operates outside of normal conventions. It brings light to established, respected and accredited artists while operating in a manner that conforms to the DIY lifestyle the show represents. More citations will be added as they become available. The program and thus the page will continue to grow, so if the page is deleted now it can't grow. If you want to delete it go ahead. Or you can let it exist as it is and as things expand so to will the wiki-page. If you feel the need to delete this page for lack of substantial coverage elsewhere you are contributing to the lack of coverage and exposure. I'm done. --Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The program may become notable in the future, or it may not. As of today, it is not, as evidenced by the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said maybe it will in the future. You claim youtube isn't a viable source, well go look at the linked youtube page and see the THOUSANDS of views. --Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that there is no significant coverage for this program. And Atomicsherbert0, I question if you actually read WP:RS. Anyone can upload something on YouTube; but merely existing doesn't make something notable for Wikipedia standards. (See also WP:UNRELIABLE.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have read it. I'm not saying that uploading something onto youtube deems it notable. I'm just referencing the fact that there is viewership.--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job guys! try taking a look at the thousands of wikipedia pages with even less citations, less impact, less information, and less reason to have a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs)

Comment Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the existence of other poor articles on Wikipedia has no bearing on the decision to keep or delete this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per WP:RS etc. People may watch this stuff, but we've not got proof of it. (Viewer figures at online sites are notoriously liable to fixing. I am not accusing anyone here of that, but the practice of this across the internet damns everyone's statistics.) Peridon (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP views haven't been fixed. views & comments available. television broadcasts happen. An online user contributed site shouldn't be damning a viable contribution based upon their views of other online user contributed site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say these figures had. I said figures like this can be. They are not reliable by Wikipedia's rules. If you don't like Wikipedia's rules, you can campaign to get them changed, comply with them, or go to AboutUs and LinkedIn where the question will not arise. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPits a valid program and has featured some bands I love. I know of dozens of folk who watch it weekly. Just because it isn't your cup of tea Ice-T fans doesn't mean you should delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.101.107 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — 24.168.101.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Equally, 'I like it' isn't a valid reason for keeping. See WP:ILIKEIT (for both ways round.) Peridon (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~seriously just keep the page.~~ is it really that big of a deal? i looked at the page. i see citations, links, references, its a credible program, showcases worthwhile well known musical acts, broadcasts in a major city (NYC), and is a well made program. -JT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.101.107 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Double "keep" !vote struck out. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this "wasn't a vote"?--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. I wrote "!vote", not "vote" (note the exclamantion point in front of the word). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All citations given are valid & relevant. Verify your thoughts prior to challenging citations. Names & info are on sites that are cited and linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was already explained to you that YouTube, Facebook and blogs are not reliable sources. This seems to be another example of someone not getting it because they don't want to get it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recent citations added by Atomicsherbert0 (talk · contribs) attempt to bolster the notability of the people involved with this project, not the project itself. Even if such references did denote such notability (which they do not), that does not make this television series notable. This series can only be verified as notable if sources can be found to prove it, which they have not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nice try epert--24.168.101.107 (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covered in Punknews and on the local CBR station. KVIKountry (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only coverage for Setlist TV that I could find at Punknews was a user comment in response to an article on Screaming Females; a user comment made by SetlistTV themself. This is advertising, not significant coverage. And I'm not sure what "CBR" refers to. There is no radio or television network in the New York City area with that designation. Could KVIKountry please be more specific (with links if possible) as to this coverage? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Thomas Eagleton. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Poludniak[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, no sources apart from that one event. Per related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Eagleton Weigand. JN 466 15:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thomas Eagleton. EEng (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as there appears no separate notability for the person. This does not mean, however, that the sources used are not RS per WP policy. Collect (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a quick search shows that there are not enough WP:RS to fulfill WP:N in a stand alone article.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:59, 9 January 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 Deleted by RHaworth ((A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content). (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 20:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Riess[edit]

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

Non-notable autobiography. No significant sources to be found covering this individual. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11; tagged as such. This is a blatant vanity article. I can find no proof that the Franchise Brokers' Association is "the largest franchise brokers' association in the world", and the article has been edited by no one except the subject himself and an IP at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, the law firm where the subject works. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:27, 4 January 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. no significiant coverage in reliable sources sounds reasonable. A redirect to a discography also seems something sensible but doesn't need an admin to do. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Underground (Analog Pussy album)[edit]

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

Another editor PROD'ded this article twice, claiming poor quality and lack of sources in the article, which are illegitimate reasons to propose deletion per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE. Therefore I am taking it to AfD because there are a few reviews out there for this album, such as this but there has been no significant coverage in reliable sources. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are several album articles for this band, and they all have similar issues. One was redirected to the band article sometime in the past, and that might be a worthwhile solution for all of them, including this one, but we'll see what happens with this debate. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The band is certainly notable, and with only a handful of albums, the relevant details of most if not all of the albums could be combined into the discography section of the band article.--Michig (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notable artist, but article appears it will forever be a stub. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:03, 9 January 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. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 07:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying[edit]

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

This is a multiple article listing for the five articles that have been created for the qualifying tournaments for the opening five competitions of the 2011 ATP World Tour and 2011 WTA Tour. In previous years, qualifying articles have only been created for the Grand Slams, that is, the four major tournaments on the men's and women's tennis tours. I argue that qualifying tournaments for ATP tournaments are NOT notable. Whilst these tournaments appear to pass the general notability guidelines, media references to qualifying tournaments are almost exclusively as part of regular sports reporting. As such, most qualifying tournaments will fail notability under the criteria of Wikipedia is not news, as routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, as events, these qualifying tournaments do not generally have significant historical impact in and of themselves: rather, they are interesting only as moments in player biographies, or as a small part of the story of the tournament, which is itself notable. Qualifiers are already mentioned in tournament articles and whilst, potentially, a particularly eventful qualifying tournament could be notable, I do not feel that they are habitually notable.

Pretty Green (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, also created on 2011 tour qualifying tournaments:

--Pretty Green (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All The qualifying tournaments are hardly stand-alone notable. A simple external link and mention of who actual qualified on the main page of the tournament is easily sufficient. Ravendrop (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The qualifying draws for ATP World Tour and WTA Tour tournaments are very important. This nomination is totally ridiculous. PL Alvarez ^(talk) 19:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of an encyclopaedia, they're not. They're tournaments which fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines as they garner no more than routine coverage, usually of the progress of any one player from a given country, rather than of the tournament as a whole. Thhe only significant outcome - the qualifiers - is adequately covered in tournament articles as is. Pretty Green (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect the articles to the appropriate singles pages (if wanted) or delete. I think qualifying draws are not important enough for a separate article, but could be included in the singles pages. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Qualifying rounds are part of the tournament itself. They don't get less coverage than the first rounds of the main tournament actually. Plus, I don't see any reason that justifies the fact that Grand Slams can have qualifying articles when the other tournaments can't, their qualifying draws are just as notable as every other ATP/WTA tournaments. Qualis in general are very interesting as they provide lots of information about lesser known players or junior players. Of course we could just put a link to the draws on the WTA/ATP websites but they are usually taken down after a year and then become very difficult to find. So yes, Olivia Sanchez beating Liana Ungur in the first quali round of Auckland might not be the most exciting thing ever but I don't see how it could harm wikipedia either. (Sorry for my english, I tried my best but it's not my mother tongue.) PS: As for including tournament to the main tournament page, it's not a bad idea but it could make the page harder to read. Djezonfly (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly as of Djezonfly. I think if we keep them you can follow a specific player throughout a career a bit more and see where he made "noise" for the first time and that stuff. I see no reason why they are less notable than the qualifying articles of the Grand Slams. Kante4 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I was planning my own group nomination together with 2007 Nordea Nordic Light Open – Singles Qualifying and 2010 Polsat Warsaw Open – Singles Qualifying. The qualifying may get some small news stories in the host and player countries before the main tournament begins but after that, the qualifying is basically forgotten. Qualifying never has top players and I disagree it gets as much coverage as the first rounds of the main tournament. And qualifying rounds are usually not considered part of the tournament itself. For example, all the official sites http://www.asbclassic.co.nz/, http://www.brisbaneinternational.com.au/, http://www.aircelchennaiopen.org/2011/, http://www.qatartennis.org/tournaments/index/21 show the main draw start (January 2 or 3) as start of the tournament. So does the ATP and WTA calendars, and almost everybody else. It's sufficient to list the qualifiers at 2011 ASB Classic#Other Entrants and mark them with Q at 2011 ASB Classic – Singles#Draw. I don't think any of the Grand Slam qualifiers have been discussed at AfD but everything surrounding Grand Slams gets far more attention. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course qualifying rounds are part of the tournament. What else could they be ? Another tournament ? No, every ATP/WTA tournaments has its qualifying rounds and qualifiers. Djezonfly (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The qualifying is often referred to as "the qualifying tournament" while "the tournament" or a specific name like "the ASB Classic" often only refers to the main draw. That's why the front page of all the nominated tournaments give a start date which is the start of the main draw without saying it's the start of the main draw. http://www.asbclassic.co.nz/news/day-one-schedule.html says "Day One of the ASB Classic" (without mentioning the main draw or the qualifying) about day one of the main draw. And http://www.qatartennis.org/news/more/2/162 says "day one" and "The first day of Qatar ExxonMobil [O]pen" without specifying the main draw. Sources generally don't say somebody played in a tournament if they failed to advance from the qualifying. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the draws the starting date for the Qualifying and the Main Draw is the same e.g. here and here. So it is one tournament. Kante4 (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got your point the first time you explained it. All I'm saying is that you'll never see a qualifying tournament without a main tournament, and the reverse is true. As a result, they're part of the same event. Djezonfly (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Equivalent to Challenger tournaments (whose WP:Notability has not been challenged, nor should it) in terms of level of participants and their significance to those partcipants Mayumashu (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all. How can you say qualifiers for ATP events are non-notable? Most qualifiers for the tournaments mentioned are ranked 60th to 125th in the world, and Challenger events only have players ranked 250-1000. Qualifiers in ATP events give points towards overall rankings, and are thus definitively notable. This is like claiming the World Cup qualifiers aren't part of the World Cup. Sellyminime^Talk 13:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - External media outside of the tournaments do seem to cover the qualifying draws albeit a portion. ASB Classic ASB Classic ASB Classic Chennai Open Chennai Open Chennai Open. Afro (Talk) 00:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Qualification rounds are definitely important. It tracks a player's route from start when entering a tournament. If a qualifier wins a tournament I think it will be quite interesting and encyclopedic to find info about those matches too. (Gabinho^>:) 22:54, 9 January 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. A7 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Godbrothers[edit]

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

DeviantArt fan, but a Google discloses no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Like always, please prove this AfD wrong! Shirt58 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A7 no notability asserted per WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:28, 4 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banarsi Prasad Saxena[edit]

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

AND

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

This article has been tagged for sources and notability for over three years, but in that time nothing has been done to show notability. My searches have failed to produce much that could be considered as establishing notability. For example, the first twenty Google hits were all Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, blog posts, Appearances of the name in lists, passing mentions in pages about other subjects, and an acknowledgement (saying "My thanks are due to Dr. Banarsi Prasad Saxena for preparing the index and making improvements in the manuscript"). A PROD was disputed, the reason given being "probably notable per Gbooks results that cite it and discuss it". However, "probably" notable is not good enough, and none of the Google books hits I checked "discussed" him: every one of them merely mentioned him once. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this meets WP:PROF.Griswaldo (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Keep per WP:PROF criteria #1: # The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.. Banarsi Prasad Saxena seems to be a widely quoted scholar: [19], [20], [21], [22]; I personally would give it the benefit of the doubt therefore. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to full keep after Msrasnw sourcing that seems to consolidate WP:PROF criteria #1 as being met. --Cyclopia^talk 01:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting mentions (which are by no means of a significant amount in this case) is meaningless. Do you have any understanding of this field or of what the importance of his name appearing in those texts is? Criteria 1 is met when you can prove "significant impact" not when you are guessing at it.Griswaldo (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not merely count mentions; read what I linked. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My research comes up the same as JamesBWatson: Several things written or stated by this person, about something else; a couple of namechecks in lists of historians; and nothing at all about this person, documenting xyr life and works. I note that everything that Cyclopia points to above falls into the first of those categories. There's nothing — provided in the article or locatable — to build a biography with. This person may well be a "known authority". But that knowledge does not appear to have been written down and published, and is thus unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think an alternative transliteration may help: Banarsi Prasad Saksena noted as one of the Historians of the 'Allahabad School' (the others being R.P. Tripathi and Beni Prasad). (Farhat Hasan in Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2 (May, 1995), Reviewing The New Cambridge History of India, 1.5- The Mughal Empire ) His magnum opus is B. P. Saksena, History of Shahjahan of Dihli (rev. ed. 1958, repr. 1962) is refered to in three cited sources as the key text. Seems sufficient other evidence under this name. - Domesticity and power in the early Mughal world by Ruby Lal p54 fn13 - mentions another work and a change to Saxena. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- … but it doesn't tell us one single verifiable piece of information about this person, and doesn't actually state anything about "a change to Saxena", merely about a convention that the author is going to use in citing a source by this person (about something else) further on in the book. Even the Hasan and other sources don't tell us something about this person, other than that xe is part of the "Allahabad school". Where's a source that gives basic biographical facts about this person? Where's an independent and reliable source that documents — say — this person's birthdate, place of residence, job, and lifetime accomplishments? None of the footnotes, unadorned book citations, and incidental mentions so far mentioned (all of which are in the first two classes that I mentioned above) give any basic biographical facts that can be put into an encyclopaedia biography. Uncle G (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I think rather than not one single verifiable piece of information we have the following:
    1. Names: Banarsi Prasad Saxena or'Banarsi Prasad Saksena
    2. was a historian associated with Allahabad University
    3. was part of the "Allahabad school"
    4. awarded a PhD. by University of London, School of Oriental Studies in 1931
    5. wrote important book Shah Jahan of Dilli run to several editions.
    6. head of the department of history in University of Jodhpur
    7. head of the department of history in University of Allahabad (retired pre 1967)
    8. productive period (judged by publications - 1930s-1970s
  - not included in the article
    - we have him staying in Streatham till the end of the war (with Dr Streda)
    - his son being Radhey Shyam
  - This is not a lot it is true but it seems to me more than sufficient to establish verifiable notability. Professor Heramb Chaturvedi's ‘The Evolution of the Allahabad School of History (1912-1955 AD) (Revised to Emergence of Nationalist Historiography and the historians of Allahabad) sounds useful but sadly my library does not include it. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    - You exemplify my point. You don't present, and don't have, a single source supporting items 5, 6, 7, and 8; and don't address any of the questions that I asked. Indeed, you state explicitly that 8 is your own conclusion, not based upon sources but guessed by you yourself. That's not writing based upon what is already documented by the world. That's making biographical facts up. Uncle G (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Oh dear - I think I have added sources to the article for evertyhing except no.8. Which was on the basis of his having published work in the 30s 50s 60s 70s and it seems 80s even though one of the sources cited indicates he retired before 67 from Allahabad. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

* On his magnum opus we have three sources citing it as the "The best biography of Shah Jahan is Banarsi Prasad Saksena" "The Standard history in English is B.P.Saksena" "The best secondary source remains Banarsi Prasad Saksena, History of Shahjahan"

^ http://www.answers.com/topic/shah-jahan Gale Encyclopedia of Biography: Shah Jahan

^ Kalādarśana: American studies in the art of India By Joanna Gottfried Williams (p5"The Standard history in English is B.P.Saksena")

^ Architecture of Mughal India, Part 1, Volume 4‎ - Page 346Catherine Ella Blanshard Asher - 1992 - 368 pages "The best secondary source remains Banarsi Prasad Saksena, History of Shahjahan"

* On head of history at Jodphur http://books.google.com/books?id=6VNXAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saksena%22+-inpublisher:icon&dq=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saksena%22+-inpublisher:icon&lr=&as_brr=0&cd=66 is referenced to National Council of Educational Research and Training., 1964

* On head of history at Allahabad http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saksena%22+-inpublisher%3Aicon+%22Hindu+Society%22&btnG=Search+Books#hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks:1&sa=X&ei=4ZEkTcmFBoOzhAfC3vzkAQ&ved=0CCcQBSgA&q=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saxena%22+-inpublisher%3Aicon+%22Hindu+Society%22&spell=1&fp=fc8aae4abccfd483 Hindu society in the sixteenth century:with special reference to northern India Ashok Kumar Srivastava Milind, 1981

Is there a problem with these refs or is it that you want links to google books putting in? (Msrasnw (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

delete I can't see anything here that raises him above the level of a standard academic career.--Scott Mac 13:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Distinguished contributions as shown above, some time ago so not much web impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep clearly meets wp:prof. People in "standard academic careers" do not become heads of department at two universities, or write what becomes definitive books in their subject. That sort of bio = an authority ion their field. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the article as it stands is sufficient both to provide some basic academic-biography detail about its subject and to show that he made an impact on the field as one of the principals of a major school of thought in Indian history. It would be unreasonable to expect him to satisfy 21st-century standards for academic citation counts etc in order to keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I expect that research would reveal that he wrote a variety of articles in his active life. It is however unreasonable to expect an article on a man active c1930-c1970 to have as detailed a biography as we would for a living and active historian. The article has a reasonable list of footnotes. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 10 January 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 Salmaan Taseer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Mumtaz Qadri[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT. I appreciate details are scant but don't believe topic is notable outside the assassination event, and that can be covered more relevantly in the parent article. On a side note I cannot believe that image is PD or the tag is suitable. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is currently a merge discussion going on which, so far, has attained a consensus of support for a merge. Even the author of the Malik Mumtaz Qadri article has voiced support for a merge. As it is, there is little independent notability to this person, and a large degree of the article's text (and, as a node to the nominator, the image as well, which I've now removed) was a copyright violation in anycase. Franklinville (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:BLP1E. Agree with merge in principle, but the article has only one cite, so there is not really much to merge. --FormerIP (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Salman_Taseer#Death, as this is the only reason they are notable. SmartSE (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Salman Taseer, per Smartse, as the only thing this person is notable for is the assassination. Bcperson89 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Talk:Salmaan Taseer#merge. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Salman Taseer page. Person has not been notable aside from one event and it is still unlikely we will find a lot about him, apart from the fact that he was just an assassinator who was destined to assassinate a politician. 58.169.184.178 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think this page should remain intact as this will a hot topic and people will come looking for more information about Malik Mumtaz Qadri. Besides people will be interested in knowing about the trail and investigation progress with Malik Mumtaz Qadri.
- Comment That may all indeed be true about what people are interested in, but I suspect that they should find that information in the Taseer article, as Qadri has no independent notability. Taseer's assassination is certainly a hot topic, agreed, but I'm not convinced that Qadri is, or not yet anyway. DBaK (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per comments above. Any useful text which is not already in the Taseer article should be copied across but I fear there is little or none. DBaK (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the article is alive and well at its new name Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri. Only Malik Mumtaz Qadri is already redirected, so this is a job half done. The history is a little obscure but it appears that someone objected to, and undid, the redirect on MMQ, feeling there was no consensus, and then it was later moved to MMHQ and MMQ only was redirected. One result is that the AfD tag on MMHQ is now out of date and does not point to this discussion, so it's all a bit of a mess. I would try to help with that last point but there are fearsome warnings about messing around with the tag, so I will leave it to an admin to ponder. For what it's worth my feeling is it's been done once and the MMHQ article - which is not even linked from the Taseer one! - should go the same way. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: ~~- fixed. That's better! DBaK (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)~~ It's back again, and it's obviously pointless to update this further. DBaK (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update again: I've undone the redirect from MMQ to the Taseer article, and redirected it to MMHQ instead. Otherwise it just confused the situation, masking the fact that MMHQ still exists and has not been merged or redirected. Since MMQ was moved to MMHQ it would seem to follow that they should be debated together and share a common fate, not be dealt with by halves; MMQ should simply be a redirect to MMHQ until the outcome for both is known. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up:It requires a major clean up.

Coercorash^{Talk^Contr.} 10:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge consensus was alredy gained on the talk page merger proposal, i twas then opened by an editor without any reason and against the grain of consensus.(Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]
- Comment - yes, exactly. But unfortunately this has been a real mess, partly because the debate has been split between this discussion and the Taseer talk page discussion about the merge, with people obviously not knowing what's been said where or referring to differing processes and consensuses (if that's a word). The move, half way through all this, from MMQ to MMHQ has not exactly led to greater clarity either, indeed I would say it has perhaps helped stifle the debate. I hope that this can be resolved, one way or another but with some clarity and finality, soon. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unanimous here too though ;)talk) 00:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed but I could bet you a Cadbury Creme Egg we haven't heard the last of it ... DBaK (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

at this point the onus is on them for consensus,Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per sources provided here I am voiding this AFD close as the evidence of notability now seems strong enough to overcome to delete arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hagger[edit]

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

Prolific yet otherwise unremarkable author. Fails WP:GNG. A Google news search turned up a few mentions as owner of restored hall in Sussex, but certainly no mention of their "grand unified theory" of history. Almost all sources used are the author's own works. From the history of the article, and related articles on author's poems, a number of "single purpose accounts" seem to be associated with this BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vanity article, no evidence of independent notability. --JN 466 13:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator’s facts are shaky: the restored hall was in Suffolk, not Sussex and “no mention of their (i.e. his) grand unified theory” is contradicted by the 63,400 results for the book that has Grand Unified Theory as a subtitle. “Unremarkable” is a subjective judgement. The editor of any author needs to source comments in author’s works. Author’s many books are all published by reputable publishers, all material is verifiable. There are several hundred thousand references to the books on internet. Sample on 5.1.2011 showed a total of 833,600 results for author/book search for nine of them: in literature, Selected Poems 133,000 results; Collected Poems 120,000 results; Classical Odes 66,200 results; Overlord 43,900 results; Armageddon 45,700 results; in history, The Fire and the Stones, which is subtitled A Grand Unified Theory of World History and Religion, 63,400 results; The Syndicate 52,400 results; The Secret Founding of America 157,000 results; and in philosophy, The Universe and the Light 152,000 results. Entries for author in International Who’s Who in Poetry, International Who’s Who of Authors and Writers, Dictionary of International Biography, The Cambridge Blue Book, Writers Directory and other similar publications for many years. David Gascoyne, Kathleen Raine and Asa Briggs spoke at launch of Selected Poems/The Fire and the Stones (pictorial evidence in A Mystic Way). Ted Hughes wrote author a six-page letter about the grand unified history theory/other works, see Letters of Ted Hughes, ed. by Christopher Reid. Author made 25 live radio broadcasts to US about The Secret Founding of America in May-June 2007 (verifiable from contact list supplied by publisher), indicative of his US profile. Similar radio broadcasts anticipated when its sequel The Secret American Dream comes out in US in April 2011. Many endorsements on books’ back covers (e.g. by Laurens van der Post), not included in article. Submit there is enough notability to keep. --Sanrac1959 (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sanrac1959 has self-identified on Commons as Hagger's personal assistant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The conflict of interest relates to the posting of a picture by the author’s PA on 2-3 Jan 2011. The picture could not be uploaded because the name Hagger had a long-term, unjustified vandalism tag attached to it. Wikipedia administrator looked into this and removed the vandalism tag after realising the uploader was not a vandal. The picture is now uploaded and in the public domain. The conflict of interest relates to the uploading of the picture in relation to the vandalism tag. --Sanrac1959 (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That has nothing to do with the fact that there don't appear to be any secondary sources discussing Hagger. I just don't see any evidence of notability. --JN 466 15:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Certainly meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK, and possibly many other guidelines for inclusion. Qworty (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~. References overhauled, secondary sources now in, author-referencing reduced. Author's works have been translated into several languages - Russian, Portuguese, Spanish, etc. - and are sold in bookshops worldwide, see book search results. Author has international/global theme and profile.Sanrac1959 (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Agree it meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK, and sources more detailed. Google search also throws up plenty of results. Notability satisfied for inclusion.Pink dog with cigar (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)— Pink dog with cigar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~. Minor tidying up now completed. All issues now addressed, meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK criteria. Seven days have now passed, can deletion/multiple issues tags now be lifted? Sanrac1959 (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't document that the subject is notable, and thus that he satisfies the requirements of the General Notability Guideline, nor can I find specific citations that show the subject satisfying WP:AUTHOR. As noted, many of the references are the subject's own work, which confirms the statements of the article but does nothing for notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:02, 11 January 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 all. Courcelles 00:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity Players of Harlem[edit]

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

Also nominated

Part of a large walled garden of dubious articles surrounding this theatre company that also includes this AfD. The company itself may be notable but the article's sources seem to be concentrating on actors that have appeared in their productions, not the company itself. There are sources out there although they tend to be listings. However, the articles on the founders and minor actors are definitely, I think, non-notable. Articles originally created by User:Shawnluckey, the name of one of the founders. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing on google, clear WP:COI Secret ^account 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I have no doubt thatthe entity called "Diversity Players of Harlem" exists, the only souces available are press releases and their own website.[23][24] or simple database listings. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 7 January 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. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Le Secret des Vikings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This entry fails WP:BK and it should have been deleted in the first nomination. The topic is also a completely non-notable fringe topic. If you disagree please specify, with evidence, which criteria of WP:BK are met. Griswaldo (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'd be surprised if this passes WP:NBOOK, really should have gone first time around. There is an argument that says we'd be best off keeping it, just so there's just the one page for the fans of this cruft to dump on rather than it all being spread out over a bunch of our Vikings-related articles, but it should be easy to RBI any remaining nonsense. Delete. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it would seem Moreschi's argument above would be in favour of a keep, no? I agree with the general line of attack, and having been through this in other articles, it seems like a useful way to control fancruft. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, not really. It's theoretically convenient, but the possibility of lazy administration is no excuse not to follow a perfectly reasonable guideline, WP:NBOOK. In the long run we're better off keeping this cruft off the site altogether (because it's not even notable cruft), rather than giving it a dumping ground. Moreschi (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: no sourcing, no indication that it meets WP:NBOOK, no substantive coverage discernible through Google News/Books so does not meet WP:GNG. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment, as was said in the previous AfD, "Having an article which explains that this book is pseudohistory is a Good Thing." This doesn't mean we can ignore WP:NOTE, of course. That said, it is possible to find some secondary citations, e.g. Jacques Pradel on Europe 1, La stratégie des Vikings on 17 May 2005. Of course "has appeared on TV once" isn't a great proof of notability, but it's better than nothing. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
on reflection (see above), weak delete. --dab (𒁳) 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. I couldn't find sources for it either using my reliable sources search engine[25] or Google News[26]. Google News Archive[27] and Google Scholar[28] turn up a couple hits, but nothing really usable for our purposes, I don't think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 January 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 Kneeling chair. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balans[edit]

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

Specific product, not different enough from other chairs (outside of its marketing literature) to warrant its own article. Should exist as a note about chair variations in another article if mentioned at all. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uggg: Just REDIR it, sheesh. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone makes it sound as if I've done something terribly wrong by listing the article on AfD. If I should have done something else please let me know, otherwise I'm left here guessing (or maybe I'm just misinterpreting you). Thanks! Wenttomowameadow (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, just be bold! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kneeling chair, where it is mentioned by name. Wenttomowameadow, this is a perfectly reasonable Afd IMO. Somebody WP:TROUT Maury Markowitz. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:06, 5 January 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. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Philippines Representatives[edit]

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

The concept of a "Big Four" or "Grand Slam" series of pageants has already been deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRAND SLAM BEAUTIES, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Four Pageants + Miss TQI and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angola at the Big Four pageants. This article should really have been included in the last AFD, but was not noticed due to its unorthodox page name. O Fenian (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Miss Philippines" pageant ceased to exist since the 1960s. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with regret, as I like such articles, but this is an unverifiable mess. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 5 January 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. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Padovani[edit]

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

Does not seem to assert notability. He could have been anything in that group - the janitor...

Even if he did contribute importantly to the discovery - that does not seem to mean that he passes WP:ACADEMIC. ·Maunus·ƛ· 09:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites 1874, 350, 178, 118... h index = 18. Passes WP:Prof#C1 Another time-wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I improved the article myself and added sources and I now find it probable that he is notable. I think xxanthippeø's attitude is unhelpful though - it is never a waste of time to get other peoples opinions about whether an article is notable when in doubt. If you are oitherwise busy you could have refrained from voting - and if you aren't you could have fixed the article your bloody self. SOmetimes an Afd is also the best way of directing editors eyes to article that need work.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There should be enough sources to demonstrate notability, I will try to expand this tomorrow. But Xxanthippe will you quit taking swipes at the people who nominate such shitty articles for AFD?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your commitment to improve the article. I will do my best to be diplomatic, but when articles about academics are nominated for deletion without regard for long established policy, it tries the patience of other editors. I add that this particular AfD is not a clear-cut case and is worthy of discussion here, but its nominator seems to have been unaware of WP:Prof#C1 when he proposed it for speedy deletion. If an article is "shitty", policy requires it to be improved (where there are sources, as there are in this case) rather than be deleted speedily. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The subject is not a professor. And as the article was it wasn't even clear that he was an academic - much less what kind of an impact his reserach might have had if he were.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not too pleased with your comments implying that I'm "incompetent" at James F. Allen. I use google books and James F. Allen turned up nothing. And I couldn't see anything solid in a google search. Notability is not always that obvious. Maunus nominated this for deletion based on the same premise.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the comments about your search there. It's best to roll with the punches. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a bit of a WP:BIO1E flavor to our existing article, but I think the citation record as listed by Xxanthippe is good enough for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use some tweaking, but as it stands it makes a credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 11 January 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. Like is often said, merging is not an exercise of the deletion tool, and there's no consensus here to do so. That discussion can of course continue on the article's talk page. Courcelles 00:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Beatriz (2005)[edit]

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

WP:TROP is currently going through a notability debate. The article being listed was a short-lived storm that has no outside sources from the National Hurricane Center (NHC). Wikipedia is not a new report and all news reports were when the storms was active. Although Beatriz formed in June for the first time since 2003, it is actually a routine event (there have been season with Category 5 intensity storms in June). As such, it fails WP:N and I am nominating this for deletion even though I will have no major objection for the article being kept. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's the same case as Tropical Storm Norma (2005). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a standard almanac entry, and a pillar of Wikipedia is that it contains elements of an almanac. Why is a weather geek nominating weather articles for deletion, then saying he really doesn't care if it is deleted? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2005 Pacific hurricane season no reason why it should be kept or deleted. Secret ^account 22:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMHO, any named tropical system meets WP:N by the fact that it is a named tropical system. WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:INSERTYETANOTHERNOTABILITYSTANDARDHERE are being used as clubs with which to beat articles, and this disturbs me greatly. Is Wikipedia running out of server space? I might be mistaken, but I don't think it is. Given that, and that Wikipedia is not paper, why are so many articles that are verifiable using reliable sources being deleted - especially this mass deletion of tropical cyclone articles? The very simple reason seems to be they just don't like having them around, and use "notability" as an excuse to be rid of them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the fact that it is a named system means it is notable? Should Tropical Storm Baker (1951) really have an article? Even for something more recent, what about Tropical Storm Damienne (2000)? (in the south Indian Ocean) Simply there being information doesn't make it notable. It's the same issue as fancruft, why there aren't articles on every Pokemon anymore. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Both of those should have articles. Comparing tropical systems to Pokemon fancruft is a complete apples-to-oranges comparison, and it's saddening that such a comparsion would even be made. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no possible way an article could be made on either of them, I'm just starting with that (they would be far too stubby). As for Pokemon vs. TC, no, I think it's a legitimate argument. Pokemon is a billion dollar series, and I'm positive that more people know of Pichu or Venusaur than 99% of all tropical cyclones, and neither of them have articles. You can't say that just because it was named means it is notable. As User:Jason Rees said, other meteorological phenomena are named, such as European Wind Storms or European High Pressure areas. The reason that storms as Beatriz, as well as Baker or Damienne, is that there isn't any independent coverage outside of the warning areas. That is the crux of it, not whether we like having them around. Hell, I've proposed a few of my own articles to be merged, even though I liked them. If no one other than the warning center had anything on the storm, then it isn't notable, and we shouldn't bother covering those storms. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Arthur Norton and the Bushranger. I tend to see named meteorological systems as something intrinsically notable and that ought to be featured in the encyclopedia even if it doesn't strictly follow GNG. Minor ones can be merged in list articles perhaps, but that's an editorial decision. The content seems verifiable. I would err on the side of maintaining the information and discussing on how to reorganize it perhaps. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:39, 10 January 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 withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 20:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bredbury[edit]

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

This article is about a notable footballer from Hong Kong. The article however, contains absolutely no references, and a recently placed BLP Prod tag was removed from the article. I added ((unreferencedBLP)) to it, but was reliably informed it's no benefit.

Since the article is composed entirely of unsourced material, the BLP rules state that unreferenced or unsourced material be removed immediately. The whole article being so, it's filed here for deletion. Barking Fish 04:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

***WITHDRAWN - Passing admin, please close.*** Barking Fish 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete completely unsourced and per nom, BLP rules state the material needs to be removed immediatley. Dusti^*poke* 04:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC) :As Cullen stated, there is other course of action to take rather than delete, and while there is only one reference, which makes it seem like it's a non biased reference (see source name) it's not totally unreference. I am the individual who sought help from BarkingFish, who sought help from someone else, so there were originally three individuals who felt there was something wrong with this article, and there's nothing wrong with bringing it to a community discussion. Dusti^*poke* 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator concedes that subject is notable. Instead of deleting, the correct course of action is to add references to reliable sources to the article. When possible, we improve unreferenced BLPs, rather than deleting them. Cullen328 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominator and Dusti seem to misunderstand the BLP policy. It is contentious unreferenced BLP material that needs to be removed immediately. There is nothing contentious in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. As Cullen328 just said, BarkingFish, you seem to misunderstand the policy at hand. Starting an AfD discussion and point blank stating that the subject is notable in your rationale is not a way to get the article deleted. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Erpert - I know the subject is notable so I wasn't going to deliberately omit that - I was going by information given to me on IRC, where I had sought comment on the article having no sources. I explained what I had done and "take it to AFD" was the advice given to me. So I did. Barking Fish 13:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some sources already for this article althought they may be not enough. But Dusti said the article is completely unsourced before and this time.FootballHK (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are not "some sources" - there is one. If you're including the external links as references, turn them into references. At the moment, from your reflist, it looks like the article has one source, so unless you got it all from the same site, please make that clear. Barking Fish 13:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it is not "absolutely no references". FootballHK (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about a notable footballer who played in FIFA "A" international matches (verified by an external link). Sourcing should be improved, but it's silly to nominate for deletion simply because the information is primarily verified by external links (which happen to be reliable sources). Jogurney (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I've read this discussion twice over the last 24 hours, and I can't find any consensus here. Could very well eb worth discussing again in a year's time, but for now, there's no consensus here. Courcelles 00:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Honors[edit]

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

The subject is the commander of an American aircraft carrier who recently received media attention when some "inappropriate" videos he made a couple of years ago became public. News coverage today says he has been relieved of command and will likely face some disciplinary measures, effectively ending his naval career. Prior to this event he was quoted briefly in the news in his capacity as a task force commander during some naval operations, but there hadn't been any significant coverage otherwise. The subject does not meet WP:MILPEOPLE or the general notability guidelines, and this appears to be a classic "one event" bio. FYI, the article was prodded immediately after creation, but that was removed by the creator. Will Beback talk 04:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Will Beback talk 04:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Will Beback talk 04:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. I come to wikipedia to get basic facts. This guy is news worthy and I want to know who he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.220.9 (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:GNG. He currently falls under WP:BLP1E (no significant coverage before the incident). Jarkeld (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a senior commander on a carrier, with aircraft capable of nuclear strike, his judgement and character and the interaction between himself and those under his command and naval officers above him and the US political and media establishment is an ongoing issue. Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I have to disagree and state he does meet WP:MILPEOPLE. He previously commanded the 6th fleet and currently is the captain of the world's largest naval vessel. 71.110.71.74 (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe 71.110.x.x is the same editor who created the article, which is nicely written aside from the notability issue.
  - I am the creator. Just like you are the nominator for deletion. Why would my opinion be worth less? Similarly, in the nomination you state that the article was prodded but removed by creator. The process says anyone can remove the prod tag for, "any reason whatsoever." --71.110.65.2 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No offense. It's customary to identify the article creator in AfDs. It just let's other editors know who you are in the debate. Will Beback talk 11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My reading of WP:MILPEOPLE, and I may be wrong, is that leading a large group confers notability only in combat. Honors commanded the 6th Fleet, and later the USS Enterprise, in non-combat deployments. It's not clear if planes from the carrier have flown combat sorties in Afghanistan since he took over in May 2010, but my understanding is that the Afghan combatants are not armed with significant anti-aircraft capabilities anyway. If so, the subject would not meet MILPEOPLE #6. I don't see any other criteria there which he'd meet either. Perhaps someone from the Military project could clarify that. As for GNG, his coverage in mainstream media has been almost totally due to this one event. Will Beback talk
- Correction: Honors commanded the 6th Fleet's command vessel. A fleet would be commanded by a flag officer, not a captain. Will Beback talk 11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honors was not the 6th Fleet commander; that position was and is held by VADM Bruce Clingan. The Newsweek article on which this assertion was based is incorrect. Quickfoot (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I vote keep. If this guy deserves to be deleted, then so does Holly Graf and plenty others. This makes no sense. His actions certainly are relevant and timely to the historical events happening in DC re DADT. LP-mn (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Holly Graf has notability beyond that of Honors: first woman to command a destroyer, later the first woman to command a cruiser. So she's has a claim to notability beyond the incidents that lead to her retirement. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 16:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, then riddle me this...why do we have a Wiki for Joseph Hazelwood of Exxon Valdez infamy? That disaster was his only real noteworthy "accomplishment". Sector001 (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are several differences. The Valdez spill affected thousands of people and countless critters, and resulted in the expenditure of billions of dollars. There's an entire article on the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In this case no one was hurt, no chickens were choked, insignificant amounts of money are involved, and the only victim was the subject himself. Hazelwood is more like Rodney King than this subject, who's closer to the Chinese video kid. Will Beback talk 11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not a convincing argument. SnottyWong ^squeal 15:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in relation to recent repeal of DADT as mentioned in several articles about the controversy. Issue made front page of today's Wall Street Journal. Rillian (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too much of the RUMORED content of the videos has not been established. Said to contain homosexual slurs? Okay, but not proven....only non-attributed testimonial quotes to that effect. Wait until the content of the videos is fully established and verified by multiple first-person journalistic review before posting ANY of this. Astrobill —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

What rumored content are you referring to? The videos are posted online - nothing rumored about them. Rillian (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep nominator continues to talk about news coverage...then says article does not meet notability guidelines.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide is an essay, "This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article." even then this essay states: "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." no one here argues that this owens has not been in "multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources."

WP:ONEVENT is probably one of the most abused AFD argument and misunderstood guideline. "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that person is associated with in source coverage." In this case, the minor event and the person are the same. Based on WP:ONEVENT guidelines, would the nominator agree to close this AFD and redirect this article to the Owen Honors incident?

The example in the guideline itself states "For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident". This is NOT a "Wikipedia:Other stuff exists" essay argument, as this is the EXAMPLE used in the notability guideline. Surely this case is more important than the Steve Bartman incident (a baseball scandal), because this incident, on the advent of gays being allowed to openly serve, shows the bias of some of those highest in the military and the issues the bias they still have to overcome. Adamtheclown (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As typical of the WP:ONEVENT Deleters, they don't have much of a leg to stand on. Perhaps we should also delete Salvatore Giunta? Seriously though, I do think that a number of military personnel that reach this level in their career do deserve at least some mention in an article. It's just a matter of finding proper documentation to reference and some soul that would at least get the ball rollings. --Hourick (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. While I concur with Jarkeld's reasoning above, the momentary attention warrants having the article. A year from now this question warrants revisiting. -- ke4roh (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE KEEP. Notable in relation to recent repeal of DADT as mentioned in several articles about the controversy. Issue made front page of today's Wall Street Journal. (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.187.90 (talk)
Delete, as the scandal is more important then the individual. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. Being relieved as the commander of the world's longest navy ship over a rather dramatic and timely (in the wake of DADT repeal) issue is kind of a big deal; OTOH, I get the sense that he just misses if Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide is the guide. My guess is, when the history of DADT is written, historians will think of this as a significant tie-in, but of course no one has enough distance yet to write a real history. What may happen here is that the article is deleted for now, but resurfaces in some form as DADT gets more scholarly treatment. So ... thanks for your work, and be sure to keep a copy in case this gets deleted. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this falls squarely under one event. The debate taking place is is over the policy, not the page in question. If you don't like the policy then there are other avenues for making your views heard but keeping an article in violation is not the right course. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to XO movie night controversy. The notability of the XO movie night was not limited Captain Honors' tenure as XO on the ship. See the 2007 Stars and Stripes article about XO movie night when Cmdr. J.R. Dixon was exec on the Enterprise. Add more about the XO movie night controversy, and less about Honor's bio. Edison (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with above entry; even if you question the necessity of Capt. Honors' bio (and frankly I think a case could be made for keeping it as well), this event was a bona-fide military scandal which does deserve coverage in Wikipedia. For those of you wondering about the actual content of the videos, Huffington Post has it here. Please note that I am not commenting about my own opinion of what happened here, only that it deserves coverage. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; commanding an aircraft carrier doesn't, on its own, mean he's notable. Being the commander of an aircraft carrier sacked in a blaze of publicity probably means he is. The Land (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why should this Wiki entry be any different than the Tailhook scandal ? Or for that matter the Exxon Valdez? The Honor entry seems rather well written and researched to me, and certainly is noteworthy. We also have no way of knowing what long ranging effects this will have on the US Navy and their command structure vis a vis his Captain and other higher-ups knowing of the video yet not taking action sooner. Sector001 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. But this means there may be a need for an article on the videos not on Owen Honors. Thats why we have a tailhook article, but no Cpt. Rick Ludwig article. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MILPEOPLE is a project essay and really has no relevance for an AfD. It's not part of our notability guidelines. In my view, this article is precluded by BLP1E because Honors wouldn't otherwise be notable. If the event is demonstrated to have an enduring effect, perhaps an article on the "event" can be created at a later time but there is no evidence of that right now. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was Captain of the largest warship in the world and his actions have created an international stir. People will be looking up this story for years to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep On one hand, it would seem to me that the commanding officer of a major ship of the fleet is notable enough for an article. Would like to see more biographical details, though. Blueboy 96 21:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the recipient of the Legion of Merit. http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/enterprise/Documents/CaptHonors.pdf That alone makes him notable. Mike 22:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — User:mfaul123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:MILPEOPLE, while an essay, only mentions the MOH and the DSF, Navy Cross and Air Force Cross. WP:ANYBIO mentions: "well known or significant award or honor". The Legion of Merit doesn't seem to fall into that category. Jarkeld (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The award is sixth in the order of precedence ... pretty high, I think. And like I said earlier, even without that he was the commander of a major ship of the fleet.Blueboy96 23:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sixth is well below second, the highest-ranking honor that brings notability, and then only if given repeatedly. Many officers command capital ships during times of relative peace and have uneventful tours of duty. It doesn't make them notable. Merely commanding a ship, however large, does not convey notability. That's not a judgment on the quality of the men or women, it's just saying that it is a routine activity. WP does not automatically add articles for mayors of small cities either. Will Beback talk 11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - A Legion of Merit or two is typical for a senior officer, staff or command. There is no inherent notability there for an O-6. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Story and the man are noteworthy.Tlatseg (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong Keep I think this is an important topic. I saw one of the videos and they were just comical, not aggressive or humiliating. This means that this guy was dumped just because he had a sense of humor and was willing to share it in his work place. Now this is important from a sociological point of view, it shows our values, what is consider allowed and forbidden. While a part of society is going towards openness and criticism (The Simpsons, American's Dad, etc), this is strongly forbidden in specific social contexts. It also has implications for the recruits, for instance I know I would want to go to the army if I knew I would find a place where one could have friends and good humor. Firing this guy sends an important message to all those recruits out there: if you're in the navy, laughing or criticizing in not allowed! So keep this here. It is a very important sign of our way of seeing the world and where we're going to. For all of this to make sense it is important to know that the person in question was competent and had an impeccable record, so this entry is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.102.138.128 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems rather more like an WP:ILIKEIT comment than an actual rationale. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:MILPEOPLE, "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." The nine "in particular" categories that follow are simply demonstrations of how an individual will "almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify." It does not say that the individual must fall into at least one of those categories; merely that falling into at least one "almost always" indicates that they have "significant coverage". The standard appears to be "significant coverage", and Capt. Honors certainly meets that standard. If the argument is that the event is more important than the person, the article could easily be re-edited and re-named to fit that criteria. Why delete the article and then have to start all over again? Whether treated as an individual or as an event, the subject of the article is notable. MishaPan (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic WP:1E. 203.97.106.191 (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after consideration. I recognize that WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS is a factor here, and certainly a lot of the other keep votes are either unaware of or blatantly ignoring these policies (argh guys do better!), but a decent amount of coverage discusses how this incident fits into a "changing Navy culture" as gay people will soon be able to serve openly, new fields open to women, etc. (This article also discusses the incident in the context of other military scandals.) I feel that we can make a reasonably bet that this will be referred to for a while, particularly as DADT repeal is implemented. However, Honors's life story is unnecessary; perhaps it could be stripped out and the article renamed to "Owen Honors incident" or something? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge whatever is relevant with the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) entry. Obviously not notable for anything beyond this incident. JCO312 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy is now (through youtube :)) way more popular than some president. I desperately needed information about him. Thanks to Wikipedia now I know a lot about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.36.112 (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Honors is not notable, then neither are all the American Idol contestants and Survivor contestants. Logophile (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Honor story is within the context of larger events Granite07 (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was the commanding officer of a capital ship, that makes him noteworthy even without the incident.XavierGreen (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTNEWS refers to "routine news coverage" of a person or event, but the reports involved here most decidedly do not fall under that description. WP:BLP1E is a guideline that does give wiggle room for articles like these in that Honors is not a low-profile individual; he was the captain of one of the most well-known ships in the world and is involved in an incident that has received international coverage. Given the amount of detail that is available regarding his military career prior to the scandal and the significance of his role in the scandal, I think Wikipedia would best be served by keeping this article in his name rather than redirect to USS Enterprise (CVN-65) or some other name. I have no objection for creating an article about the scandal if the focus of reports begins to involve other officers under his command. Location (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted, this isn't really a WP:BLP1E issue; while there is a 'one event' that pushes him over the edge of notability, being an aircraft-carrier captain is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the carrier in question is Enterprise. Some things are more than the sum of their parts; while none of his various notable things done may be notable enough in and of themselves, when combined, I believe he's worthy of an article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:ONEEVENT. The incident which led to his sacking could, and should, be covered in the article on the ship. A lot of the above keep votes appear to be variants of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT (in that the commander of a large warship is deemed notable in isolation of any assessment of available sources) and aren't based on any policy. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But if commanding the Enterprise isn't notable, where does that leave Jean-Luc Picard? ;) Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The deletionists seem to be pushing things too far here - such that it's become a knee-jerk reaction to try and delete *anything* that's in the news. If you look at what BLP1E actually says: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." (My emphasis) But he hasn't only been covered in the context of this incident. The article already cites coverage from before the video incident made the news. Probably a lot more could be dug up too. I'm sure there was coverage when he took command of the Enterprise. Also, he wasn't a "low-profile individual" even before the scandal broke. He was the commander of one of the most famous ships in the world - with a crew of over five thousand - more than a lot of towns. BLP1E was designed so that obscure people who happened to have a brief brush with fame wouldn't have articles written about them that would then have to be closely monitored (so as not to violate BLP standards) long after they faded back into obscurity. But that clearly is not the case here. We have an already noteworthy person who become more notorious as a result of this incident. -Helvetica (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The circumstances of Captain Honors's firing have made international headlines. He's now a highly notable U.S. Navy officer. -- Evans1982 (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - He will be world famous--and/or infamous--for a long time. Also, setting aside this one CO's appearances in the news, I'm surprised there isn't a Wikipedia article about every commanding officer of the Enterprise. The office alone makes individual articles entirely worthy. -- AmbassadorShras (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What independent, in-depth sources exist to support articles on commanders of this ship? (which is but one of the 12 aircraft carriers the US Navy currently operates). Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - passing notability only due to single event per WP:BLP1E and fails the notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N. The details surrounding his sacking could be included in the article on the USS Enterprise but that is it. Also I question whether a lot of the sources used in the article are reliable as well. Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is notable. --rogerd (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge - CAPT Honors fails WP:MILPEOPLE and only acheives WP:N per one event, therefore I agree with previously made arguments that relevant information should be placed in the article regarding his command; See WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps we should also look at CAPT Holly Graf --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable for only one event, per WP:BLP1E. Also fails criteria laid out by WP:SOLDIER. Hekerui (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: classis lack of lasting notability per WP:NOTNEWS, as well as WP:BLP1E and WP:MILPEOPLE. I might be willing to consider Edison's proposal to move and convert to an article about the event as well, if consensus leans toward keeping; but I think it's merely worth a few sentances on the Enterprise article, under the "history" section.

Also have to ask: what the heck does this guy have to do with DADT? The videos made were long before the repeal of DADT got traction, and the relief seems to stem from the unprofessional nature of the horsing around, rather than anything about homosexuality (media speculation and hyperbole to the contrary). bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Every Medal of Honor-winner gets his own article, no matter how insignificant his life was beyond winning that one medal (don't flip out, people, you know how I mean that...) That guy is certainly more significant than many other military officers whose significance is largely undisputed. -- Imladros (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will assume good faith for a moment and ask if you simply misread the article? Owen Honors is not an MoH recipient. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The author of that post understands Honors is not a MoH recipient; if Honors was a MoH recipient then he would automatically have a Wikipedia article and we would not all be here talking about if Honors deserve an article. Granite07 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without the current video mess, he does not pass either the WP:GNG or the WP:SOLDIER fallback. With the mess, we're just at a simple WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E scenario. The calls to keep are largely without merit, resting on WP:OTHERSTUFF name-drops, "keep its in the news!", and such. An IP editor brings up WP:SOLDIER criteria #6, but that specifically notes "in combat". Tarc (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOLDIER is nothing more than guff, actually. It's a project essay that even the project refused to try to promomte as a guideline. I hope the closing admin recognises that. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fine, but it doesn't alter the argument. Those specialized, sub-guides are there to provide cover for those that would otherwise miss the GNG; like how we have articles for people who played 1 game of baseball in 1899 even though no reliable source mentions them, because they qualify via WP:ATHLETE. Honors passes neither the general nor the specific, as unused/unwanted as it may be. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, Mkativerata's point does alter the argument. The difference between WP:ATHLETE and WP:SOLDIER is that one is a specialized sub-guideline that has the support of community consensus whereas the other is only an essay that does not have the same support. The distinction of having community consensus or not is an important one. The fact that SOLDIER was not promoted to guideline-status suggests that editors find it to be flawed in some manner. Location (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it does not alter it one bit, and you are spectacularly missing the point. If WP:SOLDIER never existed then we would still be left with what is IMO a failure of the general notability guidelines. If the essay were better-received by the community then it could possibly serve as an extra safety net to sustain otherwise GNG-failures like Owen Honors, jut as Athlete sustains athletic GNG-failures or WP:PORNBIO props up T&A tartlets who would otherwise be non-article worthy. If it is largely rejected, fine, then take it out of the conversation. But that doesn't boost his notability otherwise one bit. Tarc (talk)
        And you are spectacularly missing my point, Pot. You attempted to justify WP:SOLDIER's relationship to WP:GNG as a "fallback" when, as an essay, it has no relationship to it as such. It alters the argument in that many editors are using it to recommend "delete" when it actually has no weight as an official guideline. Incidentally, the guy who initially pointed this out to you is on your side of the !vote. Location (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's avoid name-calling. Location, you're harping on the wrong point. Whether MILPEOPLE or not is a valid notability guide is irrelevant, because it's not the only cited argument for keeping or deleting. Whether MILPEOPLE is met or not is irrelevant because GNG, BIO, and BLP1E aren't met either, and even if MILPEOPLE was a guideline, it couldn't override those other three considerations. And in any case, there are people using MILPEOPLE as a keep justification anyway, so your argument about having no official weight works against you in invalidating thier keep !votes. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Who is "harping" on which point, which point is irrelevant, and who is escalating incivility in a brash manner here is a matter of POV. Given how commonly the essay is being used on both sides of the aisle by new and experienced editors, I do not think it is irrelevant to support the point that it carries no, or at least shouldn't carry any, official weight. What is clear to me is that editors and closing admins do give at least some weight to secondary notability guidelines (or what they perceive to be a SNG, in this case). If this were not the case, there would be little need for us to post more than "fails GNG" or "passes GNG". Although our assessment differs, I think we are in agreement that the subject's notability should be determined by GNG, BIO, and BLP1E. Location (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Location, no editor in this AfD cites failing WP:MILPEOPLE as the sole reason to delete the article. At the time of the original post I assumed that it was a fallback/failsafe/2nd tier, whatever damned term you want to use, to GNG. Just as pornbio and athlete are. That assumptino is now wrong, that is fine. Honors still IMO fails to qualify for an article for other reasons, and others who have weighed in to delete have cited 1E and the GNG such as well. The now-obviously irrelvance of MILPEOPLE does not impact any deletion call in this AfD. Clear? Tarc (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.192.213 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

85.1.192.213 has made no other post ever. I forget the template that automatically says that. Dream Focus 23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean ((spa))?? bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, not much I expect, in 2002 he was commander of VFA-211 on the USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, according to Stage, Jeff. "Cicero High, Naval Academy Grad Flies Into Combat Zone: Owen P. Honors is Commander of an F-14 Tomcat Squadron." Syracuse Post-Standard March 21, 2002. on LEXIS NEXIS. It's got additional info about his education, awards, family and classmates. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample news coverage of the guy. This is a notable event, since how often, if ever, has this sort of thing happened before? The captain of an aircraft carrier gets fired for offensive videos shown to the crew. Dream Focus 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has significant coverage in reputable third party sources. Being an aircraft carrier commander may not be notable. However, being the cause of a major scandal on the largest aircraft carrier in the world would be notable. This event has received substantial coverage for the media. He received little coverage before, but still did receive some. He qualifies under WP:BLP1E. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does meet requirement for WP:MILPEOPLE line 6 by reason was command of capital ship. Furthermore the recent events will make defenitive a change in military guideline concerning media and off duty time aboard ships and on bases around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.205.10 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
#6 specifies that commanding a capital ship during combat confers notability. I don't see evidence that the ship was under fire during this officer's command. Does anyone know for sure? Will Beback talk 01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have been told, it seems that WP:MILPEOPLE is a largely rejected/ignored essay, so whether this person passes or fails it is pretty much moot. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if it weren't being rejected, he would fail MILPEOPLE anyway. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At last count there are currently over 3090 articles discussing this man and the related story. This will be discussed continually in relation to DADT, commanding officers, etc for some time to come. --Bouspret (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLP1E clearly provides for inclusion of articles "if the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial[...] Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Clearly the coverage of Capt. Honors in the news is highly persistent, and will likely be so for quite some time. -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's gotten over 30 thousand hits in its first few days of existence! [29] This is what people come to Wikipedia to see. To seek out information that interest them. Dream Focus 07:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Essentially a "google hit" argument, which is discounted out of hand. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Over 13,000 people a day are turning to Wikipedia for this article. I would not dismiss that out of hand as a "Google hits: big number" argument as you do. Likely many of the "Keep" arguments are coming from these readers of the article. When a few months have gone by, only the Wiki regulars will participate if there is a second AFD. Edison (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, it always easier to delete something with fewer people around to notice. Dream Focus 05:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What you would do regarding using google hits as a plea for notability is pretty irrelevant, as that line of argument is invalid. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - What does this haev to do with Google? You click history for the article, then click page views. Dream Focus 23:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Forgive my poor editing skills :) Not only does the ever-increasing coverage make Captain Honors noteworthy, but the level of support shown by former shipmates has been almost unwaveringly positive. That, along with the growing questioning of the timing of this punishment, years after the videos were made and addressed by superiors but immediately after they were made public in the same news cycle as DADT, and considering that the admirals who presided over the original complaint judged it not worthy of official sanction at the time and later gave him command ^[1], is adding to the growing perception that this is entirely political in nature (ya think?). When you combine this event with the firing of Gen. Stanley McCrystal for similarly indiscreet/embarrassing speech it connects into the whole cultural phenomenon of political correctness and its pervasiveness even in places it might arguably not belong like the military during war ( Honors really should be linked to ^[2] ), which then connects into the Ground Zero Mosque, Islam and the whole discussion of imbalance when again, it comes to political correctness and tolerance... this all makes the Captain more than just a one-trick-pony, even if he is one tiny gear in a very big clock. And, in the larger sense of Wikipedia as a whole, I came here looking for info on Captain Honors. I wanted his career info to cite for a comment on another site, and I automatically Googled "owen honors wiki" in order to get his Wikipedia page as the first hit. I always add "wiki" to my search terms to get here, for the (mostly) reliably comprehensive compilation of information and the links to outside sources. Isn't that what we want, what the ideal is, for Wikipedia to get as close as it can to being the mythical Storehouse Of All Human Knowledge, to be the go-to guy for information? Our policies should default to a position of inclusion of articles by definition. If the noteworthiness policy disqualifies Captain Honors but not Puck from The Real World, then that policy needs some tweaking. Thanks! Cowcharge (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rename - Per WP:EVENT. The scandal is notable, not the person involved. That is what the article should be about. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has become a dumping ground for WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP violations and has been reported at ORN [30]. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the spirit of WP:SOLDIER. An important command involved in an important event. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOLDIER is apparently a largely discarded essay. Do you have an opinion as to whether this person meets the WP:GNG ? Tarc (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get annoyed and discouraged people wanting to delete pages. If thousands of people want to read some basic encyclopedic information about a person, why not have a short article.

I wanted to read about Owen Honors, a navy commander who was in the news for controversial comedic videos. His page also is up for deletion.

I certainly see no harm in including people of minor note or short lived fame in the wiki. As far as I can tell it's a boon to human knowledge.

Imagine someone doing a report on gays in the military 20 years from now. Wouldn't it be nice if they could find the contemporaneous issues like Honors? Or Willams and the power of memes in the early internet?

Let's mellow wiki editors. Work instead on expanding and improving.

Overzealous deletion might keep people from contributing, and wiki already suffers with problems of elitism. (I am certainly not saying let poor submitters or poor articles go though, only emphasis should be on improvements not deletion.)

Lastly, if you are self righteous about any deletion, you are probably not the one who should be instigating or arguing for it. You are too personally involved. I would extend that to people who think of themselves as deleters of wiki. I recon any deleter should spend five time writing or improving articles as they do deleting. (If an article really ought not to be included, someone will come along and take care of it later.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.220.9 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — 66.93.220.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your entry, once we get past the slander and personal attacks against other editors, can be best summed up as a delving into WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOHARM, which are not a valid reason to retain an article. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas you can muster persuasive arguments like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:Not notable. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for the personal attack bit. The article is useful in an encyclopedic way. I fundamentally disagree with this and a few other deletions. There must be some basic difference either in my use of encyclopedias or in how the deleters see wiki. I had the idea that wiki "content-adders/revisers"(of which I am not) followed guidelines closer to my own intuitions. I found that some article deletions that I considered erroneous (as in I did a search for information only to find the relevant article had once existed) were carried out by only a few folk. This, along with work in article creation and ease of deletion (and learning curve for wiki proficiency), leads to the rather strong claim that if you are primarily "A Deleter!" I probably disagree with you. My apologies for both the unwikiness the earlier and now this post. Wrong time, wrong place. Ya'll got to be my first. I am now reading up all this cool WP stuff which should help me when I freak next time; I still only want to be a reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.220.9 (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to XO movie night per WP:BLP1E; relevant details about Honors can be covered there. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Wasn't he the captain of an aircraft carrier during wartime? Wasn't that aircraft carrier used in any military activities for the wars in Afghanistan in Iraq? Also, do any of his awards/medals make him notable? Dream Focus 03:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the risk of being accused of using WP:OSE, is this guy less notable than Ted Williams (announcer)? (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Williams (announcer)) --rogerd (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd say Williams isn't notable in any enduring sense, based on what's happened in the last few days. If he gets a career then he'd probably become notable. However, since I refer to Page Views below I'll point out that Williams's article has received three times as many views as this article in only half the time.[31] Will Beback talk 08:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest anyone who thinks that this is a subject with enduring notability should look at the article's Page Views.[32] They peaked two days ago at 13.6 and the total for the December 7 was just 1.8k. I expect it will continue to drop, with spikes for his departure from the Navy and the discipline of superior officers, if any. Should the subject become more notable in the future there's no reason why the article couldn't be recreated. Will Beback talk 08:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the international attention (all sourced and in the article) regarding the naval investigation currently, he has been mentioned in the LA Daily News (previous jet crash) and quoted by Newsweek for an article about Russia being unhappy with an American humanitarian action in Georgia. I am neither a fan nor detractor of the subject, I simply wanted to know more about him. How many separate incidents of sourced media does he require to be notable? --71.110.65.2 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not saying that page views are an acceptable measure of notability, or that page views constitute a good argument for or against deletion. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page views have dropped by half again in the last 24 hours. No, page views do not have anything to do with enduring notability - I'm just rebutting those who've said it does. Will Beback talk

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. No one outside of the Navy ever heard of him before he made his video and no one will remember him a year from now. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I think this is probably a case of WP:BLP1E, but it's a borderline case, as he did have a fairly distinguished career before the recent video controversy. However, I accept the argument that his military career wouldn't be enough to make him notable by itself; as significant a post as captain of an aircraft carrier is, we don't have articles on the rest of them unless they went on to a higher post beyond that. If we wouldn't have had an article on him before, we shouldn't have an article on him due to one event, therefore delete. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument here strikes me as rather WP:OSE, similar to the example they give: "* Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)" Just because there aren't yet articles about some other aircraft carrier captains doesn't mean that there shouldn't be - as long as there are enough reliable sources to document their career - it just means they haven't been written yet. -Helvetica (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're wrong, there is an article on Y, and even a why, if you wanna get picky about it.

He meets the criteria of WP:MILPEOPLE, and this has been discussed long enough. Can someone hurry up and make their mind up already?

Keep - enough coverage to qualify WP:MILPEOPLE. KVIKountry (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^squeal 15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:BLP1E. If this guy didn't make the controversial videos, no one would be clamoring to write an article on him. SnottyWong ^squeal 15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Other people have said it well enough, and just the amount of interest in this page (and the obvious likelyhood of re-creation) makes it a definite keep. LarsHolmberg (talk) 10:37, 11 January 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. John Keats is notable. John Keats in Popular Culture is only notable if there are sources that discuss John Keats in popular culture. The only offered source to this effect has been rebutted and the keep votes are mostly assertions and opinions rather then evidence based opinions founded on specific policies. Obvious if there are specific sources this can be revisited on my talk page Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Keats in Popular Culture[edit]

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

A random grouping of references to (or maybe to) Keats in others' works ranging from the famous to various high school poetry reads. C'mon we're an encyclopedia not a concordance nor a citation index. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete random list of indiscriminate trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Such lists are a clear demonstration of the individual's impact on our culture, and hence are notable sub-topics when sufficient citations are provided and the link between the separately notable item and the individual are clearly demonstrated. I view it like a listing series of awards won or reporting honorary doctorates granted.—RJH (talk)
Delete per nom. A random cluttering of tidbits and factoids without a central topic. A well-written summary of this material may be written in prose on the main article, but an indiscriminate listing of every time Keats has appeared in a work of media is unencyclopedic. Them From Space 18:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - disregarding the current ugly mess, it does list many significant references to Keats' work. These are the standards I see as developing for "X in pop culture" articles - (1) Are there several possible reliable sources pointing out that X has appeared or been used by popular culture? and (2) Do those sources mention that connection in a significant way? I think the answer is in the affirmative for both questions here. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I added a real lead. The title probably should be small p and c. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup Needs improving but useful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Keeping this is an invitation to everything in popular culture. a list of what cites or alludes to what is not encyclopedic - like a list of every article that mentions Keats....etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it only includes those presentations that are in works sufficiently notable for Wikipedia articles. That's a very small subset of "everything". Objecting to an article because inappropriate content might be added is reason to delete the entire encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO, unless sources can be cited that expressly treat the topic of the article. (Though it's not per se a reason for deletion, the article also seems to make no distinction between specifically popular-culture references and other sorts of references.) Deor (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep INFO does not affect this at all; the sources for the relevances are in the original articles --and, in many cases, are explicit in the quotations. Nothing more in the way of references are needed. As for the title, that can be adjusted. to John Keats in literature, film, music, etc., but popular culture is a useful abbreviation that seems perfectly well understood. Cf. the contents of the book at [33]. Any individual items that are inappropriate can be removed by editing, if necessary after a talk p. discussion. I removed one obvious one just now, for example. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the table of contents of the book you cited, DGG, I see the words "popular culture" in the title of an article that appears to be about Keats's drawing on popular tradition in his "Eve of St. Mark" fragment, not about appearances of Keats himself in subsequent popular culture. None of the other studies gathered therein seem relevant to this discussion, either. What exactly did you intend to convey by linking to that book? Deor (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an entire article of trivia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not meant as a host for trivia. All encyclopedic and/or notable mentions can be or already are in the main John Keats article. There is no need for the rest. Tavix | Talk 20:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into John Keats. "Popular culture" sections or daughter articles occur widely within Wikipedia, including in articles as diverse as Schrodingers Cat, island of Kythera, Yeats' poem Sailing to Byzantium, Lost Dutchman Mine. These help us understand how a particular trope has resounded through culture, and are therefore encyclopedic. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Also, nomination doesn't cite any policy-based reason and the argument that calls WP:IINFO smells unfortunately of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is a popular culture split article like anything else; nothing indiscriminate, or failing policy, and easily sourceable. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: simply a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of references to Keats. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vast majority is unsourced trivia - I was tempted to remove all the uncited, as none of its supporters are adding any citations at all. Is anyone going to cite the uncited? Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason to delete. Read deletion policy: whatever can be solved by editing is never a reason to delete. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn - Please don't ever bother yourself linking me to worthless essays. If the content isn't soon cited there will only be a couple of lines left. Supporting uncited content is detrimental to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our deletion policy is not a "worthless essay"; read it and read it well, please. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No its not, thats policy and nothing there supports the keeping of any uncited trivia. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 4 January 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This article is impractical, and the most notable bits should be merged into the main article (if they haven't been already). —focus 05:00, 4 January 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. Again, we have the problem of weak and policy-free arguments. AfD is not a vote; users commenting must provide a cogent argument with policy cites if they expect their statement to have any weight. The "keep" comments in one case agree that "it's against all policy and the AfD nomination is entirely correct" and in the other, as commented, provide no real argument. The "delete" comments follow a similar pattern, but despite a lack of links, at least make comments along the lines of WP:NOT#STATS. The single "redirect" comment again provides no detailed rationale. I implore all users at this AfD to, in the future, provide some semblance of a policy-based, cogent rationale with their comment. Ironholds (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Identity Parade guests on Never Mind the Buzzcocks[edit]

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

This list is complete FANCRUFT and an excessive listing of statistics. —Half Price 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty pleasure Keep. I know, it's against all policy and the AfD nomination is entirely correct. No references, no citations, absolutely cruft of the cruftiest sort. But also meticulously put together, beautifully presented and actually full of wonderful links and information. Any article that makes me laugh out loud feels like a net gain - this one did it with the reference to Claudia Winkleman dangling one over the balcony. Closing admin, feel free to ignore this !vote if it's out of line, but I feel this is one whereWP:IAR should sensibly be invoked. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessive and non-useful level of information. RayBarker (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 January 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete excessive trivia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Never Mind the Buzzcocks (and redirect List of rounds in Never Mind the Buzzcocks there too, while you're at it). BTW, Kim, are you serious? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was serious, but I was in a very light hearted mood that night (having just watched Eric and Ernie). That's why I bracketed my !vote with the admission that it was quite against process. I genuinely do think it should stay but I quite understand why it can't and won't. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is interesting, useful information about a show which is well known and respected in the UK. The article is quite complete, well put together and easy to read.86.144.190.110 (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First and (so far) only edit from this IP. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that relevant? When I visited (and enjoyed) the article, there was a banner at the top saying "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page", so I did.

I've actually made a few rare edits in the past, but I'm not technical enough to know why my IP address shows up differently on different occasions. As I said, though, I'm not sure why that would be relevant.86.144.190.110 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's sometimes the case that edits to AfD as first-time edits or those from very new accounts are simply people who have been recruited to come and 'vote', thinking that AfD is decided on a majority basis. You're obviously not a new editor (it took me ages to get the formatting of talk page replies with :: etc!) so I'm sure this doesn't apply here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:46, 4 January 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. With no prejudice to discussion elsewhere agreeing to organise the content differently. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of abbeys and priories in England – Counties M to W[edit]

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

This partially duplicates the scope of List of abbeys and priories in England – Counties H-W cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 03:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Clearly there has been some confusion somewhere, but this is something which looks better solved by a content discussion. If, after agreeing what information should go where, there are redundant articles duplicating information, we can probably speedy delete those as a G6 and/or G7 assuming it's uncontroversial. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did suggest at User talk:JohnArmagh#List of abbeys and priories in England that these lists would be better organised by county, similar to the List of windmills in England. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply They are mostly organized by county if you check the wikicode. It just transcludes a bunch of separate templates and pages. One of the problems is that by transcluding them all on one page, the entire thing loads very slowly. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a duplicate so the decision of how to split the lists should be done on a tlak page NOT at AFD. iN my view H-W would be far too bloated and M-W is reasonable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per Dr. Blofeld. The issue of how the various lists of abbeys and priories is split should be discussed elsewhere, probably at WikiProject level. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- I would however suggest that the article should segregate medieval monasteries (all dissolved in 1537-9) from those founded in the 19th and 20th centuries. The question is thus about how they should be organised. With historical subjects it is common to use pre-1974 counties as the use of the current ones is anachronistic. It may be that the article needs to be split further. Note: those Cathedrals that were also monasteries were dissolved at the Dissolution, but almost immediately refounded as colleges of secular canons (which are not monasteries). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 10 January 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. if its lacking decent independant sourcing then the deletion votes are indeed policy based and compelling Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

575th Signal Company (United States)[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/105th Military Police Company (United States) separate, non-combat companies are not considered sufficent notable to merit their own articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the guidance at WP:MILMOS/N. Currently the article does not demonstrate how this subunit is notable enough to require an article by itself. IMO, the subject could possibly be covered in an article about a parent formation, although any additions would have to be mindful of WP:UNDUE. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator and AR. Anotherclown (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, it is somewhat peculiar that nom failed to respect my note that I was adding sources in a bit. He waited not even an hour an a half, which may be on the shy side of requisite wp:admin civility, especially given WP:NORUSH. I've now added the sources. As to nom's "otherstuff", I point him to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which clarifies that his pointing to other articles not existing is not a good argument for deletion. But rather one that we are urged to avoid making in an AfD discussion. We have to look at each article, and what he is pointing to is certainly not a wikipedia policy or guideline. But rather a few AfDs that are fact-specific, and have not gone through the proposal/discussion/review/consensus required to set wp policy and guidelines.

Furthermore, as nom likely is aware, other articles on other such companies do in fact exist on wikipedia (see, e.g., the articles with lesser RS coverage reflecting notability that we have for: United States Marine Corps Joint Assault Signals Company, 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company, 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, 4th Force Reconnaissance Company, 59th Quartermaster Company (United States), 119th Assault Helicopter Company, 253 Provost Company, 320th Military Police Company, 372nd Military Police Company (United States), 507th Maintenance Company, 601 Commando Company, 602 Commando Company, Company F, 425th Infantry, Military Police Special Service Company, Number 1 Armoured Car Company RAF, and Rifle Company Butterworth). In any event, the article now reflects sufficient RS coverage of this company (though the prior commentators did not have a chance to see the refs) to satisfy wp's general notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge: no independnat notability per WP:MILMOS/N and the listed precedents. It's ironic almost to offense that Epeefleche criticizes the nominator for WP:OTHERSTUFF by offering several precedents, then goes on to violate it blatently himself in his second paragraph. Apples to oranges in many of those links, especially the Force Recons and the 507th, which are quite clearly notable in and of themselves. The reference additions were not really substantive as I can tell; most of them seem to be about higher formations or lists of units, rather than the company itself, and mostly only go to establish that the company exists and its lineage, rather than proving it is independantly notable. The article also seems to contradict itself somewhat, first by detailing its combat history (with some officers that seem rather high-ranking to be serving in a signal company), then claims in the last paragraph that the unit was created on paper as a ghost unit for deception purposes! Was it a real unit formed in 1943 that fought in Europe, or what it a dummy unit concieved in 1944 and simply generated false radio traffic? bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you miss a couple of points. First, I wasn't hanging my hat on "other stuff" -- I was simply pointing out that (since the issue was raised by nom) other stuff does exist. Second, as the guideline points out, as a sole criterion "otherstuff" fails. That is what nom did. But when coupled with other reasons, it may well form part of a cogent rationale. I was certainly supplying other reasons. Third, unlike the real world, wikipedia does not work on precedents (though often I wish it did). Fourth, I gather I must revisit the article later today when I have a moment to address what no doubt was my poor drafting. The company both existed as a real 575th Signal Company (the ranks that you refer to were of people in the company), and as a notional 575th Signal Company (to mislead the Germans as to where the non-notional entity was--the hope was that the Germans would be deceived into moving its forces to the location that the notional force was ... with the notional 575th Signal Company sending messages that supported the belief that the US was massing its forces there). Fifth, a problem with an upmerge is that editors such as the first !voter above may well argue that it would be too much -- wp:undue. Sixth, this article has more RS support, IMHO, than each of the above-indicated articles about other companies.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you rather misinterpreted my rationale. I did not insinuate that OTHERSTUFF was the cruxt of your argument, simply expressed my anger that you could be so brazen in criticizing Buckshot and then trangress yourself. The nominator did not rely on OTHERSTUFF as a rationale, rather, he stated "separate, non-combat companies are not considered sufficent notable to merit their own articles" and pointed to precedent, which Wikipedia does recognize (perhaps not as a manner of policy, but as an argument in a centrallized discussion, yet, it has merit). An upmerge need not violate UNDUE if done carefully, which I think it can be easily.

I thank you for clarifying the point about the deception: that there was the real company and a deception company under the same name. Surely that can be made more clear in the article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being clear. OTHERSTUFF only applies where it is the crux of the argument, not where it is only a part of the argument. "Precedent" is other stuff, and that is the crux of what he relied on. I have to disagree with you about how precedent is viewed on wp ... this has been discussed many times throughout the project (and believe me, I am not wholly in favor of the project view, though I respect it). And let me clarify again -- inasmuch as I clearly (I thought it was clear) did not rely on other stuff as the crux of my rationale, the very terms of the policy make quite clear that to point to other stuff in such circumstances may well be completely appropriate -- not at all a "transgression". For policy, we look to more centralized discussions that is afforded by three AfDs, all brought by the nom here, with very limited community input in toto. That why in AfD arguments to avoid it is made clear that, while precedents may have an impact on an AfD, the fact that some articles on a related topic have been rejected does not mean that this one is unsuitable. I would be interested in Australia's comments as to whether all of this material could be maintained in an upmerge ... I'm not sure he would agree with you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Epeefleche's listing are almost exclusively separate combat companies, of which we have agreed on the notability. The others - including a sigs company, I see - are candidates for deletion themselves. This article needs to have its text split between the 75th Div article - where KOBLENZ could go - and, possibly other articles, but the company is not notable in of of itself. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find material coverage. KVIKountry (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hypothetically, one could get one other person to agree to a vague deletion criteria on a project page, get one related article 'A' deleted on those grounds, and then get B deleted on the strength of A's deletion, C deleted on the strength of A & B...Not 'sufficient' good policy. Link to the original discussion, please. Anarchangel (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) is in the deletion explanation request is that it includes a perma-link to the original discussion. Please read the linked AfDs - that's why they're there. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Will be glad to userfy/restore this if someone wants to source it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matúš Valent[edit]

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

Unsourced biography with vague assertions of notability. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 4 January 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. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nakamura Toranosuke[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews and google indicates mainly mirror sites. simply being a kabuki actor doesn't guarantee an article. would reconsider if someone can find Japanese coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 07:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 07:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 07:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Article can always be recreated if and when the subject receives more in-depth coverage. --DAJF (talk) 08:34, 8 January 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. Is someone can find better sources then feel free to recreate this. Will userfy/incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shaikh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article doesnot meet notability guideline (WP:N) of Wikipedia! BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 11:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 11:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Finding sources in going to be complicated by the lack of English, online coverage of academics like this and the fact that this is quite a common name. However, I'm unable to find any second-party, reliable sources concerning Shaikh apart from the mention in the List of 500 most influential Muslims (warning, 43 Mb pdf), which is published by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre. To me, however, this alone doesn't establish notability, as it appears to be a moderate Islamic think-tank giving a moderate Islamic scholar an honour (and there are 500 of them). There may be other sources out there, but with the coverage I've found I can't say it satisfies the biographical notability guideline. -- Lear's Fool 11:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list of 500 influential Muslims also says he was ranked the 4th most influential Muslim in the world by a 2009 Reuters poll, but I'm unable to find the source itself. If that turned up, I feel it would probably be enough to support an article (with a rewrite). -- Lear's Fool 11:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lear's, 4th most influential Muslim in the world, 2009 Reuters poll, reference updated in the article. What needs to be re-written further? Please elaborate.ThanksMessengerOfPeace (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not voting Delete, because this is an area of Wikipedia where we could use more coverage, but the sources are weak. Since the IIPC broadcasts in English it seems possible that more printed materials may exist. Couldn't Shaikh have written some articles for English-language newspapers? Might there not be English-language reviews of his work? The 2009 Reuters poll mentioned above is only an online poll of anyone who happened to go and click a button on the web page, so we would not usually count that as any indication of notability. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 6 January 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. Davewild (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daze (Eurodance band)[edit]

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

This article cites one source, which is a listing that includes the name only and is in any case a primary source. It has never had any other sources and it reads as a personal essay or opinion. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 10:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. TI'm having trouble finding reliable sources here, but there's a few hints that this may be a notable band. Last FM suggests that their first single was a very good seller. That said, the article does need a rewrite. I'll keep looking around. -- Lear's Fool 11:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the article is not exactly in ideal condition, the subject is however notable. I'll try to dig up some more sources. I wasn't really planning to work on a crappy eurodance band so was hoping the source i found yesterday would be enough - but I guess not! --Harthacnut (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources added and the worst of the opinion stuff removed. Please indicate if more is needed. --Harthacnut (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BAND. There are enough reliable sources (including a blurb from Billboard magazine) to verify all the text. Although the band appears to have been a flash in the pan, it's multi-platinum debut album and a Danish Grammy Award for best dance album pass our notability criteria. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - found enough coverage in Billboardmagazine to keep under WP:BAND. KVIKountry (talk) 00:51, 10 January 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 with no prejudice against recreation if someone wishes to create a sourced article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Petrick[edit]

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

This article was created by an IP in 2005 and hasn't grown over a sentence since. It remains unreferenced and after having tried a whole host of different google searches I couldn't find a source. The no reference tag has been on the page since June 2009 but to no avail. I submit that we will find it impossible to find a reference for the article, therefore it has no place on WP. Also, are presidents of cable TV channels even notable? —Half Price 13:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is any notability, I can't find it either. I said the other day in another discussion that the article there took minimalism to a new level. I think this one has beaten it. Peridon (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is a 2003 source (an excerpt in Variety from Richard Hack's book Clash of the Titans) that identifies Petrick as "Jack Petrick, exec VP-general manager of WTBS, charged with handling the MGM film library"[34][35]. He was also president of World Championship Wrestling as mentioned in the autobiography of Dusty Rhodes[36] and news articles[37]. I doubt this is enough to get to Wiki-notability, however. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blimey, good hunting! Well he seems more impressive now. But considering it is so hard to find sources, and those which exist mostly mention him only in passing, I agree that he doesn't meet notability guidelines. —Half Price 23:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 4 January 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. Absolutely no sourcing to imply it passes WP:GNG, and no rebuttal to or allaying of the nominator's argument and issue. Ironholds (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic cowboy[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable fashion trend. Searches returns a few literal results - ie. people using "gothic cowboy" as a nickname &c - but no substantial discussion of "gothic cowboy" as a fashion trend. bobrayner (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per bobrayner Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Very niche and low impact scene, but it was real and a distinctive look. The Nephs are where to start looking for sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that and found no sources which actually discussed the "gothic cowboy" subject in any more depth than just gluing together the words "gothic" and "cowboy" as part of a discussion of related concepts. If you can identify any sources, they would be welcome; but in the meantime The Nephs might not be cited, because it's a wikipedia article and it neither includes nor paraphrases "gothic cowboy". Whether or not it's real is not at stake; notability is the problem. bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 4 January 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, NW (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite Andy Dingley's promise of sources, there are none to be found and I don't see how anyone in their right mind thinks you can use another Wikipedia article as a source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:13, 12 January 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. NW (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandros-Ferdinandos Georgoudas[edit]

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

fails WP:Notability (sports) for tennis players Mayumashu (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played top professional level. LibStar (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stolen Cartoons[edit]

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

Plot-only description of a non-notable TV episode. No significant, independent coverage in reliable sources of this episode to satisfy WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^gab 23:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a plot summary. One article on the series should be enough. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarabelle's Big Secret[edit]

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

Plot-only description of a non-notable TV episode. No significant, independent coverage in reliable sources of this episode to satisfy WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^talk 23:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, just a plot summary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO guidelines interlink; simply passing one of them is sufficient for inclusion. In this case, the subject seems to pass WP:BIO, and the users' consensus reflects this. Ironholds (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Pielmeier (3rd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested PROD, reason given that he is the starting goalie for an AHL team (which is not a valid reason for notability under WP:ATH. Has not played professionally in the NHL, and, according to the links, his play in the DEL was actually in the junior leagues. Ravendrop (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand this statement is W:CRYSTAL, however, this player should become notable after 22 more games barring injury or the like. He has played 78 games of the required 100 between the ECHL and AHL. He is not yet notable according to the standards so I suspect this will be deleted at this time but probably restored in a couple of months. -Pparazorback (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Pparazorback (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm going to throw out an IAR on this one and say keep. Although, I do have some evidence he meets GNG. The NHL did a feature entirely on him here, he received significant coverage after scoring a goal [38], [39], he's played in the ECHL All-Star Game and in numerous U17, U18, and U20 tournaments. It's a weak argument, I know, but one that is fair enough to be made. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I believe I'm with Nurmsook as well. The 100 game threshold was intended to apply to skaters, who play in quite a few more games than goaltenders. That might be tenuous, but being one of the few goalies in hockey history to score a goal, his other indications of notability and the likelihood he passes 100 games by the end of the season push this over the edge for me. Ravenswing 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, though I'll admit a small bias as I rewrote it in a bid to make it a workable article when it showed up on the project's unsourced BLP list. I don't think we had any intentions on the 100 game mark - we simply didn't think through the differences between skaters and goalies. He passes WP:GNG at any rate. Reso lute 03:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~never heard of'em.~~ doesn't meet NHOCKEY notability. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously making an I haven't heard of them arguement? -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Past discussions have set clear precedents that, barring a successful WP:GNG argument (complete with links to reliable independent sources), a hockey player will not be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article unless that player explicitly passes one or more of the criteria set out at WP:NHOCKEY. As it is currently written, there is no "goaltender exception" to the NHOCKEY criteria. Dolovis (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted" -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here, [40]. Not to mention the more routine coverage on his being drafted, traded and scoring a goal. Reso lute 14:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nurmsook and Ravenswing. Even if he does not explicitly pass the typical hockey notability, he is a rather unusual case. Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Resolute and Nurmsook. -DJSasso (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Courcelles 00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winn Adami[edit]

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

Article is completely unreferenced. It is written in an entirely in-universe manner, and I can't find much real-world coverage of this character in secondary sources independent of the subject. These problems have existed for several years, and I don't see much hope that they can ever be resolved. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of characters in Deep Space Nine the character does appear many times in the series and does play an important role in several episodes/story arcs, but there simply isn't enough outside coverage on her to merit an article. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 05:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of characters in Deep Space Nine per above. An important character in the series. JIP | Talk 06:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per the five pillars A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Star_Trek_characters_(T–Z)#W - No appropriately cited content worth merging. --EEMIV (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to keep or merge, but the deletion tool is clearly not called for here. Further discussion on the article's talk page. Courcelles 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rom (Star Trek)[edit]

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

Article is completely unreferenced. It is written in an entirely in-universe manner, and I can't find much real-world coverage of this character in secondary sources independent of the subject. These problems have existed for several years, and I don't see much hope that they can ever be resolved. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Apparently, he was a recurring character in 32 episodes over all seven seasons of Deep Space Nine. I never watched the show, but popularity is usually the reason that a particular character recurs in the first place. As with sports, Wikipedia sets a much lower bar on television articles when it comes to scholarly footnotes and bibliographies, and to an extent, fancruft has built up and supported the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I think we've gotten away, thank heaven, from the premise that every TV episode and every character who ever made a lone visit to a show (I keep thinking of a long ago deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Flint). There are alternatives-- redirect to Max Grodénchik or transwiki to Memory Alpha-- but that many appearances leans toward notable enough for its own article. Mandsford 01:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He's definitely one of the more prominent secondary, recurring characters. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one of the STar Trek character lists, a secondary character. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A recurring character in the series, perhaps the second-most famous Ferengi (after his brother Quark). JIP | Talk 06:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the five pillars A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to List of recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine An important recurring character, yet not to the extent of warranting an independent article. Jørdan 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. DS (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep character notability established by significant coverage in multiple sources. Plenty with which to expand and further source this article, specially as the character "grew" with the series, joined star fleet, and became key in many episodes.[41][42] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Star_Trek_characters:_N-S#R. No appropriately cited content worth merging. --EEMIV (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the character is clearly notable. The article just needs improvement. I found thousands of sources in a few short clicks. KVIKountry (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus regarding to keep as a seperate article or merge, but the deletion tool is clearly not called for here. Further discussion on the article's talk page. Courcelles 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nog[edit]

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

Article is completely unreferenced. It is written in an entirely in-universe manner, and I can't find much real-world coverage of this character in secondary sources independent of the subject. These problems have existed for several years, and I don't see much hope that they can ever be resolved. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Also a significant, if secondary, recurring character. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge and rename merge to one of the Star Trek character lists, rename the history to Nog (Star Trek), redirect to the disambiguation page NOG -- 184.144.163.241 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A recurring character, perhaps the third-most famous Ferengi (after his uncle Quark and father Rom). JIP | Talk 06:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Significant coverage that is beyond a character list. Fictional character descriptions typically are very in-universe However the IP address does make a valid point that the DAB page would be a be a better holder of this namespace slot. Hasteur (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Nog (Star Trek), redirect Nog to disambiguation page as suggested above (I have edited the latter accordingly). (If deletion was on the cards, merge instead to List of recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.) - Fayenatic (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to List of recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The character plays an important role in the series despite the label of recurring character.1 2 Sufficiently so to merit an independent article if fully developed, however as there has been little editorial interest in pursuing the potential it would be best placed in the above list for the time being. Jørdan 16:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the above statements indicate that the character is a significant character in the series. This is true, he is one of the more significant recurring characters in this series, but the secondary sources simply do not exist to write an encyclopaedic article on this topic. The article simply can not meet WP:N or WP:V. The above "keep" statements, not being based in any sort of policy or guideline, should be weighted accordingly. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Star_Trek_characters:_N-S#N - No appropriately cited content worth merging. --EEMIV (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen (radio personality)[edit]

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

Previously deleted under PROD and recreated. Questionable notability with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator. All I see out there is the radio station's web site, and blogs, tweets and youtube videos. -- Donald Albury 02:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ENT. I searched Google and ended up with the same results Donald did. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 6 January 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. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APAtT[edit]

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

Music group that doesn't appear to meet the notability standards of WP:MUSIC. Only independent source is a news listing showing that they played once at a local music festival. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only two (unremarkable) sources, that are used multiple times in the article - not on the mark for WP:MUSIC. PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me 00:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expected to find more as they've been around for a long time and they pass the "I've heard of them" test (for me at least). This is the best coverage I found, which I think is sufficient to support an article: La Voix du Nord, Glasswerk, Gigwise.com, Gigwise.com, Penny Black Music, BBC.--Michig (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Some of the sources found by Michig are fairly solid and are probably enough to confer a small amount of notability. Though the article needs more references and less promotion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Once these sources found by Michig, others, and and people alter it, the notability should be fine. A group of musicians with a long history, and are well known in the North West of England, and across England. Prolific. I've heard them on the radio, and seen them on the TV a while back. In the Liverpool music scene, they are very well known for their music and their performances. --R.Luminaire (Talk|Contribs) 00:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ultra groups[edit]

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

List of mainly not notable groups. Most of these are only referenced by WP:PRIMARY sources. Gnevin (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No objective way to measure the ultraness of fan support for their team, so does not really belong in an encyclopedia. It would be possible to have articles on Fandom, Football fan, and fan support could be mentioned in individual team articles. (Fan (person) seems to be the best match.) Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Most or possibly all of these wouldn't pass WP:ORG, so a list isn't appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's impossible to objectively define this list. That said, it is worth noting that several of these groups have articles, not all of which are included in/linked from this article. —W F C— 02:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an Ultras category will suffice. Giant Snowman 13:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a problem if some groups are not individually notable, that's what lists are for. (In particular, WP:ORG and WP:GNG apply to standalone articles, not to list entries, so arguments along these lines are invalid.) Not being able to find secondary sources for a particular group is grounds for removal of that group from the list and not the entire list, along with clearly notable and reliably sourced groups. Also, if the list is "impossible to objectively define", how come we have Category:Ultras groups and why would it - being purely subjective, as it were - "suffice"? GregorB (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, we avoid lists consisting entirely of non-notable/unencyclopedic material, especially in cases where such a list is an attempt to avoid scrutiny or otherwise introduce material which clearly wouldn't fly as an article. Sometimes we use the term "redlink farm" for these. So if Aunt Mabel's garage sale is an obviously inappropriate page, one cannot magically make it okay by shifting it to List of garage and yard sales in East Podunk County instead. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but it is very hard to argue that this list is "an attempt to avoid scrutiny or otherwise introduce material which clearly wouldn't fly as an article" when we already have Category:Ultras groups. Therefore, the garage sale analogy doesn't quite apply here. GregorB (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Taking a glance at a handful of random articles from that category, I see nothing that would pass an AFD as written, and at least 2 that could probably be speedied right now. The existence of these articles isn't evidence that the community has given them some sort of stamp of approval, but merely that (until now) they've flown under the radar and not been deleted because nobody noticed them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No contest there, but the real question is whether the concept of "list of ultras groups" - be it a category or an article - makes sense, and not whether individual entries pass the grade as standalone articles (except, of course, if none of them do). GregorB (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 January 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.