< 29 May	31 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albinus Peter Graves[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. None of them held government positions that could merit them their own articles. Their academic career was largely administrative and limited to De La Salle. Kelly and Reinhart (who was massacred by the end of WW2) do not seem to pass WP:VICTIM as their is no significant independent coverage on them (except for De La Salle-published sources). The two's info should be merged to De La Salle Philippines' history section on the massacre. Moray An Par (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.

Keep all as passing WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
What is a "major academic institution"? Moray An Par (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De la Salle University. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I was not asking for an example. I was asking for the criteria. Moray An Par (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some discussion of such criteria on these academic AfD pages in the past year or so. I suspect that consensus would be that an institution founded in 1911, with an endowment of $M200, 15,000 students and 900 staff as well as the features noted on its Wikipage, would be considered major. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'd really appreciate if you can provide that discussion. Moray An Par (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I cannot spare the time to do that now. The cut-off seems to be something of the order of 1000 students, but other editors may have different opinions. I expect a consensus of other editors will emerge in due course. You have raised the matter on the talk page of WP:Prof and I expect your inquiry will garner some views there. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep passes Wikipedia academic as head of a college. Google book search on: "Albinus Peter" + philippines produces print sources not online.[1]I.Casaubon (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this nomination. De La Salle University is a major institution. Sorry for your consuming your time. Moray An Par (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your gracious withdrawal. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of patents by India WIPO[edit]

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

Declined speedy. Not sure what purpose a list of this nature would serve an encyclopedia. WP:NOT#STATS, seems to apply in this case, as the article is just one long, list of (perhaps meaningless), statistics. France3470 (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Textbook case of WP:NOTSTATS. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Nom. This could find a mention in Science and technology in India but should not exist as a separate article.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Aure[edit]

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

Delete no indication that he has actually played in a professional match, anywhere. His "appearances" appear to be nil. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the closest thing I was able to find for a reliable source was http://www.marca.com/2010/09/14/futbol/futbol_internacional/espanoles_mundo/1284478649.html and http://www.footballpress.net/?action=read&idsel=69620 ; not good enough for WP:GNG. jorgenev 23:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He clearly fails WP:NSPORT, having not played in a fully pro leauge, and also appears to fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Integrative Improvement[edit]

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

This article is a complete mass of buzzwords, weasel words, and incomprehensible gibberish - the content of this article would be difficult to even start to work out what it's talking about, looks to be a prime example of "Management Bollockspeak". Fish ^Barking? 22:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline G11 if I'm honest. 狐 Déan rolla bairille! 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There, could somebody rather help me with this, instead of merely shooting the entire article down. I have requested help on this article from the very beginning (see the article's Discussion Page)to no avail. The information in this article is drawn from what companies (such as Du Pont, Heinz, Procter & Gamble etc.) are doing to improve their value chain by way of their own Integrative Improvement Systems. Just as The Toyota Production System has become 'the norm' in some companies, so Integrative Improvement has become 'the norm' in others. I would really like to add to the body of knowledge (albeit the business body of knowledge) by writing this article, and if there are sections of it which are confusing or unclear, please could you help me to improve it, rather than simply mowing it down? DN 09:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — Deborah new (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DN - As I said in the reason for deletion, it would be difficult to even start to work out what the hell it's talking about. It's a prime example of what is known as "bollockspeak" - something used by company management and people who have little to say, but want to make it sound like they're doing a lot. I can't think of anywhere on here you'd get help to simplify the article or make it understandable, since I don't think many people on here could understand it. Sorry. Fish ^Barking? 11:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the borderline G11 statement, its written like a brochure or study guide for Integrative Improvement, as opposed to an encyclopedic article. It needs to be completely written, not only so that everyone can understand the article, but to write it in a more encyclopedic way (in the past...To understand this concept in its entirety...II should not be adopted with... are not encyclopedic). - SudoGhost™ 15:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to G11, it's a clear example of Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability. There are two sets of references cited in this article: first set (of cardinality two) consists of the only references that are actually about the subject (they are the two PDF'd PowerPoint presentations by "SVP Global Supply Chain Roddy Martin"). The remainder predate the existence of the subject ("Integrative Improvement") or don't talk about the subject at all. For example, the claim "DuPont's Production System (DPS) is one such example of an Integrative Improvement System" is purportedly supported by the transcript of an earnings teleconference that doesn't even include the substring "integ", let alone "Integrative Improvement System". Even a google search of the term produces a long list of links to websites connected to Martin or his employer (viz., http://www.etracc.net, http://www.ccint.net, linkedin profiles of his employer's henchmen, or supply chain conferences at which Martin has apparently lectured (http://supply-chain.org, http://www.enfasis.com)) -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Daniel for your comments (by far the most helpful in terms of my trying to improve this article). For what it's worth, something I'd like to clarify: The phrase 'Integrative improvement system' is a common noun. When companies who adopt IIS speak of it, they therefore do not talk about it as an 'integrative improvement system'. Rather, they use their self-given name to their IIS (proper noun). So Du Pont call their IIS the 'DuPont Production System' (DPS), Heinz call theirs 'Heinz Global Performance System' (HGPS), Alcoa Mining call theirs 'Alcoa Business System' and Procter & Gamble calls theirs 'Integrated Work System' (IWS). All of these companies, whether they use the services of external consultancies to help them roll out their IIS, or whether they choose to roll it out as an internal effort, call their IIS by a self-given name (they do not call it 'our intergrative improvement system', which is why we would struggle to find the phrase on google).

II and IIS is an internal business effort with which companies hope to gain competitive advantage - isn't it understandable that companies would not publicise details of their internal business practices for their competitors to see? (just makes my job of citing multiple references a little more difficult). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah new (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, by your own admission, the topic "Integrative Improvement" is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia:

It is not verifiable ("companies would not publicise details of their internal business practices"). All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable.
"All of these companies, [...] call their IIS by a self-given name". If you invented the term "Integrative Improvement", it does not belong on Wikipedia, especially if nobody else uses that term. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.
At this point in time anyone who knows about the subject has a significant financial Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and could not be reasonably expected to write about it from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Per WP:NPOV, "this policy is non-negotiable".
Wikipedia is not a platform for TRACC, ICC, or Roddy Martin to advertise their consulting services, "web-based Continuous Improvement System", manuals, support, and training per WP:NOTADVERTISING. You and your business associates should not be creating an article about the methodology around which you've built products and services and then repeatedly linking to it from high-traffic articles (as you did [2], [3], [4], &c.)

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This term is not supported by the references provided and does not appear to be in common use. It may be original research or an essay which are both examples of things Wikipedia is not. Or it may be simply a summary of the theories of one Roddy Martin since most of the links seem to lead to him. [5] Maybe the article could be redirected to Continuous improvement process, a phrase which does occur in some of the references. BTW I wonder about that graphic; are we sure it isn't copyrighted by somebody? --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to DN, I realize it can be very frustrating when you have worked hard on an article and then everybody is telling you it has to go. You rightly wonder why people aren't helping you to improve it instead. Here's why: the problem is not with the way the article is written (in spite of some of the snide comments above); it's with the topic itself. Even you seem to say that this particular phrase is not in general use, and if it isn't, there can't be an article here about it. Wikipedia is not the place for essays or for original analysis; this is an encyclopedia and we only have articles about things or concepts that have received significant outside sourcing. If this article does get deleted, you might consider whether some of the things you wanted to say could be added to the existing article Continuous improvement process. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly. Oh, Ghod, where to begin? ....a holistic, ongoing and sustainable business approach which builds on the concept of Continuous Improvement. The goal of applying II is for a company to achieve Best in Class/World Class operations in their given industry. Now, let's see, we have stated a lofty goal, stated in the rosiest but vaguest possible terms, and a promise to Make Money Fast. This is what the Britons call complete bollocks; Americans have a more rustic word for it. A deliberately uninformative article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Floriberta Jiménez Torres[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Falls under WP:BLP1E, she has only received coverage for one event and has remained low-profile after that. doomgaze (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as 'one event' and WP:VICTIM. I can see that the event was a dramatic story at the time, but it does not seem to me to justify creating a Wikipedia biography on her. Her youth at the time of the incident is an added consideration. --AJHingston (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E. She got some press coverage for surviving an unpleasant 42 hours in a hot van. Edison (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E applies. She doesn't seem to have received any coverage since her ordeal, and the event itself wasn't notable enough for an article. Robofish (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fynn Jamal[edit]

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

A Malaysian poet. Only references in the article are to two blogs, one of them is to her blog. Unable to find any published poetry. From her blog, she is now a singer and songwriter (not mentioned in the wiki article). Google searches are to her songs, especially one called "over". However all songs are free to download and are not put out by any company. Bgwhite (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources found for poetry (one unconnected book by an author with the same name), and fails WP:BAND. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No external sources found. LK (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 3 June 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'm sorry Bluenotetote but the consensus here is that while Ricco Wright may be an amazing person, he's not notable at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied to User:Bluenotetote/Ricco Wright per suggestion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricco Wright[edit]

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

Non-notable vanity page. Sole contributor appears to be the subject of the article, though he changed his name. Ori.livneh (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow, what a lengthy biography. Yet despite all those words, I am at a complete loss as to what he supposed to be notable for. He appears to a bright guy who has received some student scholarships and student awards. Most of the article reads like "Dear diary..." written in the third person. And finally, no reliable sources covering this person to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to have had a few minutes of peripheral fame regarding a one-time incident that happened to someone else in 2007, but that's about it. This article is basically just a gigantic vanity piece about his going to college and essential all WP:OR. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This is entirely about what the world has contributed to Ricco Wright, and nothing about what Ricco Wright has contributed to the world. Once he starts making those contributions and reliable sources start documenting and recognizing them, then we can have an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The article cites Reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject. Also, this article does not have one sole contributer, it has been edited by many different editors and was created through the Articles for Creation process. It does appear that he received quite a bit of coverage in a incident that occurred in 2007, [6] [7] [8] (WP:BLP1E may apply). Much of the biography section relies on tc.edu, which is a primary source so it must be replaced. If replacements cannot be found, then the article should be deleted or tagged with Template:BLP primary sources. I also see that the article has some neutral point of view issues, but they can be addressed. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He was quoted briefly in some news stories about an incident that he had little or no actual connection to beyond being associated with the same school. I wouldn't call that "quite a bit of coverage". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - let's write an article on this guy in 20 years time when he's actually done something notable. Anthem 15:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - What Alpha Quadrant said. One more point: this article is well done in terms of adding references, wikilinks, and overall presentation. In the spirit of WP:NEWBIES, especially for a newbie who's going out of their way to write in Wikipedia style, is there some other place we might suggest this be posted? Trilliumz (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Encouraging new editors is good. Encouraging the addition of articles which do not meet inclusion criteria, no matter how well-written is bad. He can always publish his biography on his own web site, or Wikibios. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Good point. In such case, I believe WP:Userfication seems to be the best choice. The only reason not to userfy a biographical article is if the article contains objectionable material (for example, if the article disparages or insults the subject, but that does not seem to be the case here). In short, there is no rule against userfying this article. —CodeHydro 21:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He sounds like a brilliant young man and I wish him well. Someday he may become notable and then we can write about that. However, there is absolutely nothing in this article that justifies its inclusion in an encyclopedia. (Seriously - an entire paragraph about his music collection? A whole section on what books he read and how he interpreted them?) --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Userfy - While granting that the guy as interviewed by NPR and CNN and that the subject appears to fall into a bit of a gray area with regards to notability, I strongly suggest however, in the spirit of WP:NEWBIES, that the article is userfied rather than deleted. This article obviously took a lot of work to produce and is even fairly well-written and sourced; considering how much the main author has contributed to this particular article, it's not hard to imagine that this editor could contribute a great deal to Wikipedia in the future. I hope the closing administrator will consider this option of userfying the article despite all those "votes" of delete... WP:Userfication accomplishes everything deletion does, except much less calloused and disrespectful among other things. —CodeHydro 21:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Changing vote to Strong Userfy for reasons listed above. Trilliumz (talk) 23:11, 6 June 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 Rudderow class destroyer escort. Suggest someone boldly merging the other articles too Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USS Weeks (DE-285)[edit]

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

A ship... that was never built. I'm having trouble understanding how that's notable. The sources certainly don't support notability in this case; they're just lists of ships with very little information. And an infobox that confidently reports the non-existent ship's complement, tonnage, and armament seems absurd. I could imagine perhaps a list of never-constructed ships of a particular class, but an individual article for each one? Powers ^T 20:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can find multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, pretty unlikely for a proposed but unbuilt ship. Edison (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs in a class article - there were a great many ships cancelled either on the stocks or earlier as priorities changed or hostilities came to an end. She might be notable if she were a new type or significant variation on an existing class, but the article would have to be about that. --AJHingston (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the class article Rudderow class destroyer escort. The class article should have a list of ships, so this can be reduced to an entry on that list (also as a starting point for the list). 65.94.44.141 (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree it should be merged unless we can find more information and references. --Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the class article (Rudderow class destroyer escort). A sentence or maybe two there are about all the coverage needed for this planned ship, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the class article.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the same token all the other articles relating to unbuilt ships of this class ought to share the fate of this one. They are:
- USS Vogelgesang (DE-284), USS Sutton (DE-286), USS William M. Wood (DE-287), USS William R. Rush (DE-288), USS Williams (DE-290) & USS Walter X. Young (DE-723). NtheP (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Move the info on those ships to the table now at Rudderow class destroyer escort#Ships. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some never-built ships are of importance, this one - being a completely generic member of a large class - is not. The Land (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rudderow class destroyer escort. I also agree with NtheP, same should apply for the others. A list of the cancelled ships at the class page makes sense to me. I would, however, like to preserve the info on the ships' namesakes, whatever happens. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Powers points but think we should merge instead of deleting. It seems absurd to me as well that the infobox somehow lays out the exact specs of a ship that never existed.Sabre ball (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into the class article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the class article, it's what WP:SHIPS normally does with ships that were never built. There are exceptions, of course, but this does not fit the bill. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (incorporate the info into Rudderow-class destroyer escort). The same goes for Vogelgesang, Sutton, William M. Wood, William R. Rush, Williams & Walter X. Young. Shem (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rudderow-class destroyer escort per the above - some unbuilt ships are notable enough for their own articles, but this doesn't seem like its one of them. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Puempel[edit]

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

The notion that a "CHL Rookie of the Year" award = preeminent honor is not the intent of WP:NHOCKEY. Favoid (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CHL (as well as OHL, WHL and QMJHL) ROTY has been discussed as a preeminent honour in other AfD's (Ryan Nugent-Hopkins and Nail Yakupov recently). When evaluating "preeminent honour", I have always considered it to be the Top 5 awards (MVP, Top D, Top Goalie, Top Scorer and Top Rookie). There is also a significant amount of coverage: Windsor Star, The Hockey News, NHL.com, NHL.com Canada Hky (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: CHL Rookie of the Year is certainly a preeminent honour. Also, meets GNG through [9]. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CanadaHky. I definitely consider Rookie of the Year to be a pre-eminent honour. At any rate, he easily passes GNG per the linked articles. Reso lute 19:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. ROY is a notable award. Patken4 (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. It't not an A7 as there is an assertion of importance but it's almost an A1. It may be possible to write a sourced article on this subject so I'm going to close this as "delete without prejudice" so if somebody does write a new sourced article, it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel J. Holcomb[edit]

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

Without references, there is no indication that this specific animal (a cat) is notable. Bringing to AfD since I just contested a misplaced BLP PROD. VQuakr (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my mistake with the BLP PROD didn't realize its an animal, but with no reliable sources its impossible to determine notability. Also a quick google search doesn't bring up anything. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 19:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make that speedy, if possible. Without any sourcing, there's no really credible indication of notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Darwin[edit]

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

Minor British foreign-service bureaucrat who fails WP:DIPLOMAT, which states that notability in this area applies only to diplomats who have "participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources." The article does not even assert that much. It is nothing more than a grab bag resume of various bureaucratic posts, with no evidence whatsoever that he was ever involved in a significant way in any of the major international events of his time. Qworty (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Material added to establish participation in UNCLOS III and the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, passing WP:DIPLOMAT. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in any event, merge-and-redirect to Darwin–Wedgwood family seems more appropriate than deletion. Sergeant Cribb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. It's hard to gauge from the sourcing provided what precisely was his role in UNCLOS III or the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, so, regretfully, I can't see how notability has been established. There must have been hundreds of individuals involved in one way or another with both of these, and of course not all of them would be notable. Qworty (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source makes it clear that he was one of the three people who drafted the treaty. Notable enough I would say. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to have received some coverage. May not meet WP:DIPLOMAT but seems to meet WP:GNG ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 21:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nassau Royal[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. I searched online for "Nassau Royal" and the album in Google's news search and regular search. Cloveapple (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator that he doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSIC at this time. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources either. Robofish (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I searched on Google and found 19 entries about Nassau Royal and his album in the first two pages. One reliable source was from Grammy award winners Clannad. Nassau Royal's Album Breath of the Universe is mentioned on www.clannad.org.uk Musicpsyc (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly found entries but they were things like a myspace page, a blog, places selling music downloads, and the website of the band Clannad. I didn't see things that fit Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources at WP:RELY. I was hoping the news search would turn up some newspaper reviews or something similar, but didn't find any. Cloveapple (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage for this artist in reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 02:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. no reliable sources found. article currently unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 2 June 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. This is why AfD is not a head count. From this debate, I cannot discern any effective rebuttal, sufficient for a delete close, to the argument that these sources make the subject satisfy WP:GNG. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Darwin[edit]

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

Great-grandson of Charles Darwin. Article is literally a list of "achievements". Some achievements are: "In 2006 he visited Charles Darwin University", "In 2010 he said he thought it was OK to teach kids creationism" and "In 2005 he did a programme for Radio 4 on the Galapagos Islands." Bgwhite (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What exactly is the argument for deletion here? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite's argument would appear to be that the article is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of generally trivial events in Chris Darwin's life. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a grab bag, failing to assert how Chris Darwin is notable. I quote WP:IINFO: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Thus, a list of trivialities, such as we have here, even when gaining passing mention in WP:RS, does not add up to notability. Qworty (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: poorly sourced list of snapshot-minor-events (not even enough to make a decent WP:RESUME), mostly linked to being a professional-descendent-of-Charles-Darwin, and thus falling under WP:NOTINHERITED. Neither an articulation of any particular notability, nor coverage of any depth whatsoever. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that it is possible to be notable for being a descendant of someone notable, if being such a descendant is what you do for a living. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative.
— WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm well aware of that thanks. My point is that if what this person does is, as you say, being a professional-descendent-of-Charles-Darwin, then it is possible to be a notable professional-descendent-of-Charles-Darwin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeant Cribb (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even were I willing to accept this argument (and I'm still far from convinced by it), the odd dinner/banquet/radio-show/etc hardly amounts to being particularly notable even as a professional-descendent. As I said above, most of the events tabulated are very minor. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Only independent claim of notability I see is perhaps "In 1991 he co-authored with John Amy the book The Social Climbers", but then just co-authoring a book is not really enough (I've authored a published book, but I'm not notable). My "weak" qualification is due to Sergeant Cribb's point - while notability isn't inherited, can a case be made for someone whose career is being a professional descendent? (It's not that he's just a descendent, it's that he's making a living out of it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think we can say that he is notable "for being a descendant of someone notable, if being such a descendant is what you do for a living," since the only thing he's earned from this "profession" since 1991 is one free dinner at the Melbourne Museum. Qworty (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that he's tying the "adventurer, conservationist and media personality" shtick to his relationship to Darwin -- although, as you point out, most of the actual coverage is for the unpaid portion of this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One free meal over the past twenty years is a good way to lose weight, though. Qworty (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone did say "being such a descendant is what you do for a living", did they? So this really doesn't seem to be relevant. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This person has not been subject to significant coverage directly and in detail. So they fail WP:GNG. Obviously. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 19:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fully agree that notability is not inherited. But in this case it appears Chris Darwin has leveraged his ancestry and gone out to establish a name for himself with significant coverage in reliable sources such as: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. I think this is enough to pass WP:GNG - but I also agree that the article is very poorly written and needs substantial trimming to focus it down to what is cited from reliable sources and is actually notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 2nd BBC story (reference #5) is about what 6 descendents are doing and only mentions Chris Darwin once in passing. References #1 and #3 are about him donating money to the Charles Darwin Reserve. The articles are more about Charles Darwin and the reserve than him. Reference #4 is a promotional BBC article promoting BBC Radio 4's broadcast, "It's My Story", where Chris Darwin traces Charles Darwin's voyage. Would news stories about a descendent of Charles Sturt donating money to Charles Sturt University make them notable? I don't know. Bgwhite (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I mean about the sourcing. It's extremely thin, mentioning him only in passing. It doesn't really fulfill WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in any event, merge-and-redirect to Darwin–Wedgwood family seems more appropriate than deletion. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider that, but to be honest, there's not much content remotely worth merging. He failed an A-level. He was a guest of honour at a dinner. He gave some money to charity. He shares some genes with his ancestors. All those statements apply to me too, actually. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chief Counting Officer─╢ 21:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only two out of four for me then. But I didn't get into the Guinness Book of Records. Did you? He did. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment The donation generated significant coverage for him specifically, as he was featured in multiple reliable source articles over a period of at least 6 years for it: [15] (in 2003) [16] (in 2009). He was the subject of an article in a reliable source in 2010 [17] about his views of creationism being taught. He also was the primary subject of a documentary which received reliable source coverage in 2005 on the BBC [18]. Seems that he may have leveraged his ancestry, but that he has successfully established a name for himself in terms of notability as well. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant, direct coverage of the article's subject in multiple, reliable sources uncovered by ConcernedVancouverite. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very very minor celebrity failing GNG. References are generally incidental. Moondyne (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED seems especially apropos here. WP:AUTHOR is probably the closest subject-specific guideline, but the sources do not seem to support that or the general notability guideline. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, this seems to be a case in which the part of WP:NOTINHERITED "a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative" applies. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern with WP:NOTINHERITED is that, in this case, its application seems to walk a fine line/grey area. I agree that it is likely that Chris Darwin's charitable work and comments would not be subject to the type of significant coverage they've received if he weren't, you know, a Darwin. But I'm more used to seeing WP:NOTINHERITED applied to cases where an individual has literally done nothing of note -- where notability rests exclusively on being someone's child, cousin, what have you. That isn't necessarily the case here. Chris Darwin has, in essence, leveraged his inherited notability to support his actions, and his actions have been the subject of significant coverage.

Applying WP:NOTINHERITED to this case suggests, to me, that there is a higher bar of notability for relatives of notable persons, which is surely not the intent of the guideline. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED means that we shouldn't decide someone is notable just because of their relationship to a notable person. It does not mean that people can't in fact become notable because of such a relationship. Apart from WP:NOTNEWS, we don't tend to judge why someone is the subject of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, nor should we generally. postdlf (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the coverage here is NOT SIGNIFICANT. It is trivial and passing, as anyone can see. Qworty (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't comment on that question. postdlf (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it is the vital question. Qworty (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "trivial and passing" coverage of Chris Darwin. Neither is this. Nor this. You may go bold and ALL CAPS at your leisure, but I have no idea how you conclude that those three articles, which are entirely about Chris Darwin and are in reliable sources, spanning years from 2003 to 2010, constitute only "trivial and passing" coverage. Perhaps you can clarify. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The problem with the three articles you cite is that none of them describes him doing anything at all notable. They are articles about trivialities. Please have a look at WP:IINFO: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I wouldn't be surprised if you can find a published source that says that this guy got out of bed on a Tuesday morning and had eggs for breakfast. The question raised by the sources presented for this article would still be, So what? Yes, in bold. Qworty (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"None of them describes him doing anything at all notable"? I read them as discussing a sizable donation he made to fund the purchase of a notable nature preserve, raising money for charity by writing a book about a world record he set, etc. I don't know that I would call these "trivialities," and if they were, surely they wouldn't be the source of so much coverage.

As for WP:IINFO, I don't see how that applies. The examples listed -- plot-only descriptions, lyrics, sprawling lists of statistics -- don't seem to have much to do with this article and its content. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Request to Closing Admin (et al.) I've just taken a little time and made substantial revisions to the article in an attempt to bring it more in line with encyclopedic tone standards, as well as focusing on what particular efforts of Chris Darwin's have been the source of significant coverage (mostly his charity/nature advocacy work). Curious to see if the revision has any material effect on anyone's opinions.
As for the request, would it be possible to userfy this article if consensus is to delete at this point? I think there's a more than passable article to be had here, given the sourcing available. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as the majority of the commentary on this AfD substantiates, the main problem is not with the "tone"/writing-style, but with the triviality of the material, that does not (in the opinion of many of the commentators) articulate a substantive claim to notability. None of the sources "address the subject directly in detail", so there is no significant coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I recognize that consensus seems to be going in the opposite direction. I'll be honest: I revised the article because, while I have total faith in anyone and everyone's ability to evaluate sourcing, etc., the manner in which the article was written previously practically screamed "this is a list of random stuff," and I know I certainly have a tendency to adopt a skeptical eye when looking at an article like that. It looked like someone had Googled "Chris Darwin" and copy/pasted the search previews. I tried to flesh things out a bit more, and there's more material in the sources that could conceivably be used (hence my question regarding possible userfication).

Either and any way, I'll respect whatever decision is made here. Frankly, on reflection I can perhaps see the reasoning behind concluding that a mountain of sources covering Chris Darwin's actions might amount to little more than a mole hill of coverage of Chris Darwin. Obviously I don't quite see it that way but I respect consensus. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the 'Public Appearances and Opinions' section still has a strong feel of "this is a list of random stuff" to it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. I almost left that section out! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this example. This is the "Biography" section of the article as it currently stands. In fact, this is the entire section. Despite the fact that it is well-sourced, it is utterly trivial. If this is what passes these days for "notability" on Wikipedia, we are in deep trouble:

"Darwin was born in 1961 in London. Ironically, given his famous ancestor, Darwin struggled with biology in his school years, failing the biology A-level. He subsequently worked in advertising and television commercial production for several years in the United Kingdom before emigrating to Australia in 1986. [1] Darwin is married to Jacqui and has three children, Ali, Erasmus (Ras), and Monty.[2] They live in the Blue Mountains north of Sydney, New South Wales, where Chris works as a nature tour guide." Qworty (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a background section. The next section covers the efforts that have provoked coverage. I'd posit that many similar background sections in BLP's on Wikipedia are full of similarly non-notable information; birthplace, early education, profession, family life, etc. That's their purpose. Since we're apparently posting paragraphs, here's the paragraph that should probably be considered. I only post it because I don't want someone ambling in here and concluding that the section you've just posted is supposed to be the main argument for the subject's notability:

Darwin co-authored the book The Social Climbers. Written about a 1989 event in which Darwin and a group of seven other friends held a dinner party on top of Mount Huascaran, the book raised £10,000 for the National Heart Foundation. The dinner party itself set a world record for the "highest formal dinner party on Earth." [3] [4]

In 2003, Darwin donated $300,000 to the Bush Heritage Australia charity to help purchase the Charles Darwin Reserve in Western Australia. [5] [6] The 65,000 hectare reserve is intended to preserve plant species.

In 2009 he became an ambassador for Bush Heritage Australia." [7] ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half a book about being one seventh of a world record + a $300,000 donation do not add up to a substantive "argument for the subject's notability". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking in circles. I'm running away for now, will keep eyes on this. It's two days overdue for an Admin to come in and do the Admin thing as it is, and continued "I'm right; no, I'm right; no, me" type conversation is probably not constructive at this point, eh? If it matters, taken at face value, I absolutely agree with what you just wrote. My position is that the coverage of these otherwise middling actions grants them notability, but it's clear you and several others disagree, and for not invalid reasons. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foxmail[edit]

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

Almost no sources. No claim of notability apart from reported user count, which is of dubious value. It may be that this is notable in China; brought to AfD to establish notability one way or another. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 May 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, v/r - T P 17:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found in multiple books (400+), just click the Google Books link above. Some are in English, and many more in Chinese. And Google Books probably doesn't index even 1% of the Chinese books. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any nontrivial coverage in English—many of the hits are merely email addresses that happen to end in @foxmail.com, and none of them really meet the requirements of "significant coverage". This doesn't necessarily mean the subject is not notable, just that there is no evidence of notability in English sources. If a neutral party wishes to evaluate the remaining sources, that would be helpful. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if coverage in each source is one sentence (and it may well be longer, but I don't read Chinese), 2000 news articles plus hundreds of books make it notable taken together. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention"; even if you have lots of trivial mentions, they're still trivial (and usually only repeat just the same minimal information.) That's inconsistent with the whole idea WP:SECONDARY of writing an article based on them. Msnicki (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've word counted some randomly selected articles from Google News archive, translated with Google Translate:

http://news.pconline.com.cn/hy/0503/577240.html - 750-word coverage of the acquisition by Tencent
http://tech.163.com/05/1122/11/235KOGSA000917GR.html - 800-word preview coverage (2 web pages) of Foxmail 6.0 Beta1
http://tech.sina.com.cn/s/s/2008-01-10/09491965493.shtml - 2000-word review (5 web pages) of Foxmail 6.5

According to WP:GNG sources do not have to be in English. These alone are sufficient to satisfy the Wikipedia requirements and there are hundreds more articles like this. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could a Chinese speaker add a few references, with a note describing a little bit about what the reference says? Or explain what the references on the Chinese article are? Trilliumz (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're worried about the notability of the sources themselves, see 163.com or sina.com. These aren't some backwater blogs. pconline.cpm doesn't have a Wikipedia page that I can find, but it's the Chinese equivalent of a site like Tom's Hardware. They claim to be number one in China [19] in their niche. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foxmail is also covered in many introductory Chinese books on Internet, but I don't think Google Translate works on Goolge Books page because they are images. A few books like that which have multi-page coverage of Foxmail: [20] (9 pages) [21] (11 pages) [22] (8 pages) [23] (3 pages). FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good work FuFoFuEd. Notability is clearly established. Dream Focus 06:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just pointless. T'would be better in China. Rcsprinter (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New edits, scores of useless, insignificant search results and generic Rescue Squadron attaboys can't disguise the lack of any remotely significant coverage of this subject that can be used to establish notability. At best, Foxmail is a sentence at the already bloated Tencent article. Flowanda | Talk 11:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lack of sources in English language doesn't mean it's not notable, and the lengthy Sina source alone establishes notability. We would be a poor encyclopedia if we ignore software that has a 30% market share in China. Laurent (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Comment. I concede that the subject appears notable based on the Chinese sources. But that's not all there is to the question. We also have to be able to write the article. I don't see how that gets done.
WP:SECONDARY requires, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."
I understand that we have procedures for dealing with non-English sources WP:NOENG but here's what it says: "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page." I think this contemplates translating a few sentences, not whole articles.
We are not building a Chinese wiki, we are building an English wiki. I can see using Chinese sources as citations for a few of the claims but I cannot see writing an entire article based on them. I also cannot see using the Chinese sources as some sort sham evidence of notability but then writing the whole article from primary sources because those are the only ones anyone can read. Msnicki (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, I think having articles based on Chinese sources makes the encyclopedia even more valuable by making foreign topics accessible to English speakers (assuming of course that the article is properly written). Even if the majority of users cannot check the sources, it's not really a problem as long as a few editors can. Laurent (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, go for it. But consider this my request for the translations per WP:NOENG. I understand the noble goal but I still think you need a practical way of achieving it, consistent with the guidelines. I don't think there is one in this case. Msnicki (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look, if this software has 30% of the market in China, then obviously sources exist, they just don't exist in English. As long as we have a bilingual editor who's willing to work on it (which apparently we do otherwise the article wouldn't have been created), I don't see a problem. BTW, here are a couple English-language sources we can possibly add to the article.[24][25] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assume we have a bilingual editor able and willing? Here's what the article looked like before FuFoFuEd added the Chinese sources; it was based on nothing but primary sources in English. And even FuFoFuEd concedes he can't read Chinese. Msnicki (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we assume? Because we're wikipedia, maybe? We do shit like this all the time. I've already notified one chinese-speaking editor I've worked with before to chime in.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK appeared to assume a bilingual editor created the article ("otherwise the article wouldn't have been created"); I don't think either of us was talking about editors who might appear in the future. Msnicki (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made that assumption. I stand corrected. In any case, I notified WP:WikiProject China.[26] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: i don't know what the article looked like before, but it has definite claim to notability and sourcing now. The idea that we can't have an article on something where notability is proven by news sources in Chinese is ridiculous. We do have resources, like editors, who read and write Chinese!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been shown above that this is clearly a notable topic. Remaining issues with the article can be dealt with by normal editing rather than deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, via it's large market share and quantity of secondary sources available. I can translate the references into English later today, if that is a significant problem. Ferox Seneca (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiLaurent and A Quest for Knowledge. The market share alone (from a 3rd party source) is enough to establish notability, and the interpretation of guidelines regarding foreign language sourcing by Msnicki above is deeply flawed; the guideline explicitly states that English sources are "preferred", not required. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concede I've never before participated in an AfD where all the secondary sources were in another language. So it's entirely possible my understanding of the guidelines is flawed. But it would be helpful and greatly appreciated if you (or anyone else) might be able to respond, hopefully with links, to my concern that the guidelines seem to contemplate translating only a small amount of material. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines contemplate translating only a small amount of material firstly because of copyright laws, and secondly because the time and energy of our multilingual editors is highly valuable and ought not be wasted on WP:POINTy demands.

Sources do not have to be accessible to you, personally, to be valid. They have to be accessible to someone, not everyone. The rule is the same no matter what sort of barrier exists: ink-on-paper sources are not accessible to our blind editors; expensive sources are not accessible to our poor editors; Chinese-language sources are not accessible to our English-only editors. An editor's ignorance of Chinese, or his unwillingness to personally pay for a Chinese translation, does not actually mean that the material unverifiable; it only means that we need to ask someone else to do the verifying. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translations appear to be an exception; it appears those do have to be accessible, if requested. Again, from WP:NOENG, "When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors." I should clarify (as I did elsewhere) that my main concern is indeed the copyright issue, also raised in WP:NOENG. Msnicki (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have lots of articles where the sources are in another language, and doing them well seems to be almost hopeless. Anything about quantum physics or number theory... Wnt (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly WP:OTHERSTUFF and I've already changed my !vote anyway. But now you have me intrigued. Can you suggest one of either where every one of the secondary sources is in something other than English? This could be very educational for me. Msnicki (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess my sense of humor didn't translate! Wnt (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I actually enjoy physics and math, so the joke about those being foreign did go right past me. I really did want to see that article. I'm only good at a few things. Quick pickup apparently isn't one of them. Msnicki (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Freeware us difficult to source even in English. The fact it's Chinese and has such sources strongly implies notability. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to say, I am prone to agree with the complaint of bias I saw at User talk:Jimbo Wales - things do not need to be notable "in English", and comments like "T'would be better in China" are not helpful. The only "excuse" to be made is that I've seen AfD's just as ridiculous about prominent European companies. According to the article Foxmail amounted to 3 million users, 10% of the Chinese e-mail market at some point (must be more now!) The English Wikipedia should aspire to cover every single thing the Chinese Wikipedia does, and vice versa - the only difference being the language used. Of course that is not practical to accomplish; each Wikipedia is best at researching in its own language - but there is absolutely no virtue in trying to reinforce laziness with stupidity. In the meanwhile let's be happy if we can keep up at least a poor article about the topic. Wnt (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, when I said "reinforce laziness with stupidity", I was saying what I felt we collectively as a group would be doing if we rejected an article simply because it was hard to translate its sources. This comment was not meant to refer to any particular contributor. Wnt (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm changing my vote. I've agreed all along that the sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I continue to question the practicality and likelihood of producing a worthwhile encyclopedic article in English when every meaningful secondary source is in another language. I think this is likely to end up either largely unverifiable to most users or based pretty much only on the primary sources. But I concede this is strictly an editorial problem and that (a) it's entirely possible I'm too pessimistic and (b) the editorial problem is irrelevant to this decision at AfD.
Finally, I will add that to me, the complaints of possible bias looked more like examples of it than anything else. For me, it wouldn't have mattered if the sources were in the one other language I can read (sort of); I'd still have had the same concerns. And I agreed with the "better in China" remark as I understood it, namely, a wry, ironic observation that it'd be a simpler question if the resulting article was supposed to be in Chinese as well, the same as the sources. We should be able to talk about these things without chilling the room. I'd have appreciated better demonstration of WP:AGF. Msnicki (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In all this, I still see no sourced claim of notability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a 30% share of the chinese market indicates clearly notability. As fare as non english sources are concerned. If some editor has reasonable doubts regarding the content or reliability of the chinese source, he can ask other chinese speaking editors for an assessment (for at WP portals for China or Chinese culture).--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's just me, but as a user, a lot of the value of having sources to verify claims isn't just about assuaging any doubts about the content. As a user, I can't remember that I've ever gone to source because I had doubts about whether an article here was true (even though I do it all the time as an editor.) I want the sources for the additional context and because I may want to read them, too, or use them in a citation where I can't use Wikipedia. Verifiability isn't just about keeping us honest, it's also about creating the best, most usable reference material we can. Msnicki (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure where the problem is. Nobody is keeping you from verifying the claims anyway (be it by getting translation help or by searching for other sources). However the fact that you personally might not be able to (easily) verify a particular source due to it being in foreign or highly technical language or simply being offline, doesn't give you the right to delete content in question. Nor can you expect that all sources are always in a form that's easily verifiable to you.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is purely a pragmatic, editorial issue, which is why I'm concerned but still !voted keep. The guidelines at WP:NOENG state that if translations are requested, they should be supplied. It also warns, "be careful not to violate copyright." This appears to contemplate translating only small amounts of source material – a few sentences to support a few facts – not entire articles, in keeping with fair use. But in the case at hand, where every meaningful secondary source is in Chinese, I'm skeptical of being able to cite these sources for all the major claims and post those translations (which I take for granted will be requested, hence my slightly pointy remark earlier, "consider this my request for the translations") without violating fair use by translating the entire articles. Once you've translated all the individual sentences needed, what will be left that wasn't translated? I don't think this is what the guidelines contemplated. In addition, I'm rejecting what appears to be an implication in Kmhkmh's remarks that people only want translations because they don't trust Chinese editors; that's ridiculous. Msnicki (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either use Google Translate or (more direct) the Chrome browser. "I don't read the language" isn't an excuse any more. Flatterworld (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous idea, Flatterworld. Why didn't we think of that? Oh, that's right, we did. Perhaps you can show us how to make it work. FuFoFuEd seems pretty sharp but even he was stumped: "Foxmail is also covered in many introductory Chinese books on Internet, but I don't think Google Translate works on Goolge Books page because they are images." Beyond that, it seems unhelpful and dismissive to characterize others' thoughtful comments as "excuses". Msnicki (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately for you, I can translate snark. ;-) There are smartphone ocr apps such as Google Goggles and Cam Translator which might help. (I have no idea which is best, but I expect someone here does, or knows how to find out.) The point is, we need ideas for all such articles, not just this one. Articles about someone in another country are generally first written using that country's language, then translated by Wikipedians into other languages (see Barack obama articles) simply because the interest usually appears in the 'home country' first. That certainly doesn't make it a requirement, but that's why we haven't run into this problem all that often. (I read the Chinese Wikipedia article about Foxmail, as I'm sure the rest of you did, and there isn't much there.) btw - you don't find it odd that ALL the sources are only in Google Books? One I checked appeared to be using Foxmail as a reference/link, not providing information about it, and another was a manual on how to use it. Flatterworld (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be disagreeing with something that bears no obvious relationship to anything I actually said. Bear in mind that I had already !voted to keep, even before you arrived. Your idea of using smartphone apps sounds like your idea for using Google Translate: Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't actually have to do it. Msnicki (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And nothing's possible for the twit only looking for excuses why something can't be done? Whatever. Someday when you're in a better mood you might want to check out the Google Translate blog. Meanwhile, perhaps others actually interested in translations might look into that. Flatterworld (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, Google's translations of Chinese and Arabic are excellent... for a machine. When I started Huáng bǎi I was able to make a lot of sense of portions of the Chinese Wikipedia, despite not knowing enough Chinese to find a toilet. Yes, there are whole paragraphs that are just impossible to figure out - certain types of description just aren't easy for the machine to translate, like how to recognize good huang bai by appearance and aroma. You might get a bit of extra information if you go over these character by character in Wiktionary (which now has a remarkably large collection of Chinese character definitions, though I think it's still hit and miss with multiple character words). But of course, there's no small number of Chinese who can speak English, and if we could recruit them to the project --- and if certain misguided officials would finally give up on trying to stand in their way --- we would have absolutely no trouble at all with stuff like this. Wnt (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. I think the language issues could be overcome, and do not represent a valid reason for deletion. Anthem 19:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per WP:GNG, and there is already a reasonable article with pointers to many resources in Chinese and one each in English, French and Dutch. Articles like this one are very important for system administrators with no command of Chinese who are trying to figure out what to do about non-standard emails produced with this client, so I really can't understand why anyone would want to delete this in spite of obvious notability. Hans Adler 23:07, 4 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Taylor (writer)[edit]

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

Fails notability tests WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. No articles about the subject appear to exist in reliable sources. The author's body of work is not sufficiently notable in and of itself to justify a Wikipedia article. Claims that the subject held a government position or academic position are not sourced and therefore insufficient to meet WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fully agree with the nominators comments - the citations barely mention him. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Speedy Delete~~ - I am the author for this article. ~~I would rather not draw out this discussion and would rather have this deleted promptly.~~ I have added some additional references; removed information that lacked the required references; and added stub classifications for the article. I strongly suggest keeping the article, and also would like to introduce for your consideration the context of producing biographies on living persons in countries such as Trinidad & Tobago where published data is woefully inadequate, both in print and online. Ironically, it is people like Taylor who archive the lives and activities of Caribbean people and culture, and conflict of interest precludes them from being written about in their own publications. I do not know the solution to this for the purpose of Wikipedia, but it is a significant issue that I think the editors need to consider. I recommend instead making this and articles like it stub-class articles, so that as more newspaper, journal and other documentation from the developing world is digitised and written, such references can be added to flesh out these stub articles. Alternatively, if Wikipedia looks to remove all similar articles, then there will be a disproportionately small number of entries on the people and culture of the developing world. That would be a grave pity. Larasister (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then place a ((db-author)) template on the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gamaliel (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sparsely sourced article neither demonstrates any particular notability nor exhibits any depth of coverage by the sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe that his contribution to journalism and publishing in TT makes him notable. Founder of MEP alone is significant, IMO. Now whether I can source that adequately is another issue - there is, of course, something of a gulf between what's notable and what can be readily sourced online, especially for a small country. Guettarda (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists get coverage through their employment but that does not assert wikipedia notability. I see Guettarda's position and would welcome that being proved correct but all I see is a redirect to Media and Editorial Projects Limited or a small merge there.- Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, this looks like a potential keep. The article was created by a long-term (if not terribly prolific) editor who works in the general area moderately regularly. The New York Times cited the subject as a reliable source in a moderately sensitive area in an article on V. S. Naipaul, a person of such stature that the Times typically takes great care in selecting its sources. GSearching ("Jeremy Taylor" + Trinidad) turns up an awful lot of GNews and Gbooks; GNews coverage is unsurprisingly weaker (it doesn't archive much of the Caribbean media) but comments on at least one of his books turn up in the Washington Post [27] and the Toronto Star [28]. I don't know quite what's going on here; but when an SPA appears out of the blue and calls for the deletion of an article on a living person with an empty "just not notable" rational, I'm dubious. Maybe the subject, a publisher, rejected one of this guy's books -- we've got no way of assessing what's going on. The article needs substantial improvement, and might not be salvageable, but let's-just-delete-it isn't the right answer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case it's unclear to anybody else, as far as I can tell, HW's comments regarding an "SPA" above are in reference to the following post to BLPN: [29]. I'm adding this because his comments initially led me to think he was suggesting Macwhiz is a disgruntled author SPA! ;)
Beyond that, I am confused about the two links HW supplies above. The WaPo link is a review of a Trinidad & Tobago book by another author ("James T. Yenckl"), and the Toronto Star covers several travel books, none of which appear in Jeremy Taylor's list of publications. I'm willing to personally exercise a slightly lower bar for notability for this individual given his background, but neither of the links supplied seem to have anything to do with the subject, unless I am missing something (which is, of course, entirely possible). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Well, you are missing something, but it's one of those arcane Google search "features" that can drive you crazy. Basically, when you do a GNews search and hit articles behind a newspaper paywall, the GNews search pages will quote the actual text relating to your search, but when you go to the actual link, it's hidden by the paywall if it's far enough down in the body of the article. Here's the GNews search results [30]; for example, the Washington Post link shows "As Jeremy Taylor author of Masquerade an excellent guide ..." -- but that's not included in the "Article Preview" that shows up when you click on the link. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: And here I thought you done gone crazy. Doh! I'm going to take a closer look at those results and see if I can convince myself to vote !keep. Thanks for clarifying that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you need to be able to demonstrate that "sources address the subject directly in detail" -- and I don't see how you can do that based upon a search-fragment from an article-behind-a-paywall -- particularly given the articles do not appear to be on the topic of Taylor, so there's no presumption that they would give him detailed coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated, Guettarda & Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've dug up as many references that were buried deep inside Google as I can. I wouldn't have created the article if I didn't think his work was particularly notable, not just at a national but regional level. The trouble remains that the bulk of his regular work – and the debates that other regional figures including Nobel Laureate Derek Walcott waged with him regarding his local theatre reviews in the press – was the 70s-90s, before the advent of digitisation and the internet, so much of it is not online and citable. To be honest, I'm not sure it's worth the effort to go down to the National Library to try and source those articles for the purpose of this article – hence my brief conversion to the request for speedy deletion if the article couldn't be salvaged. For me, it does Taylor, Trinidadians, and similar local/regional figures an injustice to debate the "notability" of his work in this forum, as it's a closed question for almost anyone based in the region or diaspora. But as I mentioned earlier, the context of trying to create articles on these figures is something the Wikipedia team should consider as the problem will persist for many, many duly notable figures that make their living and their reputations in the often-not-documented "developing world". Larasister (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One important point - sources don't need to be online to be citable. However, what we need are sources that specifically talk about Taylor. Though honestly, I would love to have a copy of the article he wrote shortly after the coup, where he talked about the call he got from the BBC. Hearing his report on the BBC, within an hour or two of the attack on the Red House and ttt was, for me, a significant part of the whole chain of events. Even before that he has gravitas that other newsmen didn't have. And that's the problem. I know he was one of the leading journalists in Trinidad in the 80s. I just don't quite know if I can demonstrate that... Guettarda (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a largely self-written page by a very undistinguished freelance writer who never produced anything of note. This bio reads more as a self-advertisement written by the subject than a real Wiki bio. Not at all distinguished in journalism or as an author. T&T has produced a number of noteworthy authors (Naipaul, Lovelace, etc), but this guy is not one of them. Google either of those and you will see when an author is actually noteworthy there is plenty of online info about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadRo (talk • contribs) 13:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — RadRo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Tentative~~ Keep ~~What is a "tentative keep"? I am not really sure.~~ I have strong suspicions based on the article's existing sourcing and content, some tantalizing Google results above, and Guettarda's thoughts, that notability exists. Unfortunately, I am utterly unable to prove it, and I know where burden lies. I have reached out to DGG to see if he might have any luck finding some offline sourcing, and will keep checking back in to see if he digs anything up. In the interim, I have no particular rebuttal to offer against any of the above delete votes, and am fully cognizant of the lack of any real inclusion argument included in this vote. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider merging some of the related content, certainly the article for his book Discover Trinidad and Tobago, which does not warrant separate coverage, and probably also the article for the publisher he runs, Media and Editorial Projects Limited, and perhaps also Caribbean Beat the magazine he publishes, and even Caribbean Review of Books, which he also publishes--though that is the one of them all which most deserves a separate article. I must admit I felt a little more positive about this before discovering separate articles on each of them, a classical WP:Walled Garden. This is one of those cases where there might well be distinct sources for notability , but they are not in any practical way accessible to us because of regional bias. It's not just getting access to print: Some regions and languages have neither print nor online adequate periodical or newspaper indexes, or even book union catalogs. And in the US there are inadequate collections for some areas in even the major libraries. And some aspects of life of great human cultural and economic significance do not publish anything that resembles what we think of as reliable sources; some still rely entirely upon oral or manuscript traditions. The only approach to this that is productive for us in the short run is to relax our standards for what we do accept, in consideration of what can be expected to be found. In the long one, we can hope that the spreat of the multilingual Wikipedia projects will encourage the development of the necessary resources. I have sometime criticized some WMF initiatives, but their efforts to increase participation for the global south, and for development in these regions of the necessary basic information resources, do information from the things and people important to them can get the recognition they deserve in the general world community. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I simply don't think that it has been demonstrated that this person has done anything to warrant an entry. Simply having a job or writing a few articles isn't enough. I think it really cheapens the whole point of Wikipedia if this kind of self-promotional advertisement is allowed to stand as a legitimate article. If such a marginal personality as this warrants an entry, where do we draw the line? RadRo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC). — RadRo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

note - this user vote commented twice so I have struck this second one. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this person even approaches the standard for biographies of living persons established by Wikipedia. I have spent a great deal of time in the Caribbean (including Trinidad) on business and I have never heard of him, though I could recommend several other media/entertainment personalities worthy of note. "Founder of MEP alone" is NOT "significant," just one of millions of people who started a private business concern. Really, this entry leads like an advertisement for his businesses, not the bio of a serious person in the Caribbean. AzureHears ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC). — AzureHears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Uhm...welcome to Wikipedia, and congratulations on your first edit :). In all seriousness, while I understand some of the other deletion rationales in this conversation, I don't really get the suggestion that the article reads like an advertisement that you and RadRo are advancing. It mentions this individual's current business exactly twice, and makes no grand claims about said business at all (like you'd expect from an advertisement). If this is an advertisement, as you and RadRo so loudly claim, it is a particularly poor attempt at advertising. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I struck my delete comment - there has been a limited degree of improvement to the citations and some of the comments here regarding his notability have made me reconsider and move my delete position to a more neutral kind of no consensus position which would default to keep Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no strong feelings about this article one way or the other; while it has improved considerably since this AfD was posted, I'm still not sure I see the notability. I'll stipulate that Taylor may be notable in Trinidad and Tobago, but if it's not possible to show that notability clearly in the Wikipedia article to someone not from that country, I think the notability issue could still be murky. For that reason, I'm not withdrawing my nomination at this time... but neither am I pressing for the article's deletion. I'm mainly happy that the nomination has caused improvements and started the discussion. Now, if someone were to find a WP:RS for something or things that unequivocally meets WP:AUTHOR, then I'd withdraw my nom. (I don't think the cited reviews are quite there yet for criterion 3.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it would be easy to meet WP:AUTHOR. Rather, I think he meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG in a more general sense. It's the combination of his contribution as a journalist and a publisher. And yes, nationally significant figures are notable. So if he is notable in TT, that would make him Wikipedia-notable. Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we still need better sourcing (and I'm trying to track some down), but I think that the combination of his contribution as a journalist, founder of MEP, publisher, and the way he is referred to by, for example, the author of the NYT article on Naipaul are enough to demonstrate notability. Agree with DGG that some material in the whole group of articles should probably be merged. Guettarda (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I don't think the NYT article does much to establish notability. If it were an article about Taylor, it would help establish notability. Instead, it uses him for a sound bite about somebody else. Note WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple..." (my emphasis). Being a journalist, an author, or a publisher isn't enough in and of itself. Are there T&T-specific sources that show him to be notable there? That describe him in some way as being special as a journalist or publisher? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - To say being a journalist, an author, or a publisher isn't enough in and of itself totally misses the point. He's the co-founder of MEP, which is one of the most important publishers in the country, if not the region. He's the founding editor of Caribbean Beat, an significant regional publication which just happens to have been BWIA's in-flight magazine. Together with Nicholas Laughlin he was responsible for the relaunch of the Caribbean Review of Books. Founding a regionally significant publisher and several important periodicals is a notable achievement.
    He's also notable as a journalist. That's difficult to demonstrate simply because people don't write about journalists much, and Taylor is much of a self-promoter. The fact that the author of the article about Naipaul chose Taylor as a source indicates that the author of the article sees Taylor as an expert, as an authoritative source. Which points to notability in a far more substantive way than does a few newspaper stories about the person. That isn't something that can easily be codified into a guideline, but guidelines aren't simply algorithms into which you can simply plug data and have an answer pop out. Guidelines are important tools to help sort out problems like notability, but they aren't really just our best attempts to muddle through problems. Systemic bias remains a problem. Take, for example, our topic-specific guidelines - we have ones for porn stars, but we don't any for businesspeople or journalists (AFAIK). Because we have a large body of people who are about the former, we have guidelines to ensure that every porn star of any importance can be covered. Editor interest should not substitute for editorial judgement. Guettarda (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Institutes of Technology alumni[edit]

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

I'm not sure what's the point of this list. It repeats alumni lists which are available for the different IITs and requires double the maintainable. Maybe at the time of creation when there were few alumni in each IIT this had a point, but not now. Muhandes (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or With number of IITs increasing (12 at the last count i think) such a list would be unmaintainably long. We can keep this as a disambig page with links to the different iit alumni pages.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:29, 2 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Sanders (Wisconsin politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN; not elected politician. Only 3rd party references concern him standing for Lieutenant Governor. He was failed to be chosen as the Democratic candidate (4th of 4 in the primary[31]). Tassedethe (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as he's never been elected to high office. Cullen328 (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sanders garnered less than 10 % of the vote, coming in fourth in the "partisan primary election" in September 2010, according to a citation that I found and added to the article. That fact being said, I doubt he's notable. Weak delete. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsuccessful candidate for office; has held appointive posts and chaired groups but not enough for notability. Article could be recreated later if he gains more notability in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 6 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cresswell[edit]

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

Not a notable sportsman or teacher. The ABA is not fully professional. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Likely Autobio, PROD removed by article creator The-Pope (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete has not played at highest professional level in Australia, NBL. fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doesn't pass WP:NSPORTS and has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so doesn't pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above three. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Five Years 11:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus William Hare[edit]

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

Created as part of a mass creation in 2004, appears to be from what was then a newly released eBook at Project Gutenberg of a 1910 English "Biographical Dictionary". Fairly obscure British cleric, appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability_(people); he was perhaps marginally notable in England in 1910, but not now. A Google search returns little of note. Text here is copied directly from source, it has received no significant improvements since 2004, and contains no substantial inward links. Article is doing little but attracting maintenance work, e.g., wikifying, copyediting. Was nominated for WP:PROD, but PROD tag was removed without a reason given on the talkpage. jjron (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the once notable, always notable rule. With his brother (which is a difficulty as they had joint authorship) he seems to have well known for his Guesses at Truth which remained in print for many years. The 2nd edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (1953) has seven quotes from there, the 4th (1992) three. The number of quotation sites on the internet, taken straight from dictionaries such as those, ensure that he is not totally forgotten, of course. --AJHingston (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The basis of this article's creation tells us that the topic is notable. Bringing it here on the grounds that it is "doing little but attracting maintenance work" is absurd - you don't fix that problem by creating yet more busy work. Warden (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the GNG; and there seems to be a number of sources available for expansion, such as this extensive passage on his rhetorical skill as evidenced in his Sermons to a Country Congregation, a collection that isn't even mentioned in our article but which, in addition to inspiring the aforecited Edinburgh Review essay by Henry Rogers, received an extensive review in The Quarterly Review. Deor (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So you're suggesting that the authors of the biographical dictionary were wrong when they told us that he was one of the more important figures in English literature? Do you believe that they only used unreliable sources to write his biography? I suspect that the answer to both questions is "no", and if we say "yes" to either one, we have a very good reason to say that he is worthy of an article in an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 3 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Alaska Cessna 180 crash[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The reason given in the original PROD nomination was: "Crashes among general aviation aircraft are far more common than incidents involving airliners, and are therefore not considered encyclopedically notable unless they involve famous people, or lead to industry-wind changes in safety procedures, see common standards for inclusion at WP:AIRCRASH. Otherwise, the event is more of a news story (WP:NOTNEWS)." I continue to stand by that. While the accident was fatal, there is no evidence that it has led to any "changes to procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There appears to be nothing that indicates lasting notability here, with all the references relatively short news items. As the nominator says General Aviation accidents are relativly frequent.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can really add to Sjakkale's and Nigel's arguments, between them they cover all the pertinent points IMO. YSSYguy (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:AIRCRASH criteria for GA aircraft as no Wikinotable people appear to have been involved. Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with all above. 213.246.82.177 (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sad fact is that this sort of thing happens fairly regularly as soon as the summer season starts up here. I believe there have already been three fatal plane crashes, seven climbers dead at Denali[32], and last week five fisheries workers drowned in Cook Inlet when their overloaded skiff got swamped[33]. Alaska is dangerous, it takes people out all the time. Three people that I know personally have died or been injured in small plane crashes in the last 10 years. The individual crashes are of course tragic, but we can't document each and every one here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above. A news story, not a notable event. Choess (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This claimed the lives of a whole family, a rarity in airplane disasters. Also rare for a plane to crash into train tracks. This article was a major event in Alaska's Aviation history. This should always stay.Springyboy (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, aircraft accidents (it's not a disaster, it's just an accident) that kill an entire family are not rare at all; it happens almost every time - if not every single time - a large airliner crash occurs that kills all on board, and it happens quite a bit with light aircraft accidents as well. At any rate, that is no criterion at all for keeping a WP article. As Beeblebrox points out, aircraft crashes are also quite common in Alaska and this is therefore not a major event in Alaska's aviation history; and the crash onto train tracks is basically irrelevant. YSSYguy (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Solutions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article based on press releases, so lacking independent coverage. (Don't let Reuters and so forth fool you, they also host press releases.) FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent references, weak assertion of notability. A Train^talk 10:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another provider of software for retail merchandise management and decision support. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kanemoto J Noritsugu[edit]

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

selfpromotional nn, no evidence of notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not improved from its current state. No references at all, and external links supplied with the article do not appear to be 3rd-party independent sources. A Train^talk 10:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 13:41, 30 May 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 2012-13 UEFA Champions League. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2013 UEFA Champions League Final[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Gives no information, because there is no meaningful information yet to give. Kevin McE (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have UEFA stated that this is scheduled to take place? If so, then keep, as future re-occuring sporting events that have been given the go-ahead are notable. Compare the AfD for a future Cricket World Cup. Lugnuts (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no scheduling details as per the 2019 Cricket World Cup ie there is no date or location given. So other than the fact that the 2012-13 UEFA Champions League will take place, there is no information about the final. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012-13 UEFA Champions League, to put people off from re-creating a red link. Pretty Green (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per Pretty Green. There is no concrete information on this final to justify an article at present. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, as above. Giant Snowman 11:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: are we allowed to redirect to a redirect, which is what several people have proposed? Kevin McE (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They ment 2012–13 UEFA Champions League. -Koppapa (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems to be subject to the same criticism: it contains absolutely no information specific to the 2012-13 tournament, and is entirely predicated on the assumption that it will be run on the same basis as the 2011 or 2012 editions. Kevin McE (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to UEFA Champions League for the time being. 2012–13 UEFA Champions League shouldn't exist either for the exact reason Kevin McE has said. – Pee Jay 16:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the Inside (band)[edit]

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

clearly fails WP:BAND. article contains no reliable sources and admits the band never got signed. could not find any reliable sources. so I tried searching lead band member Ben Licht, nothing relevant. and google search reveals nothing reliable either. note "from the inside" is a name of a Linkin Park song. LibStar (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not coming up with any significant coverage, either. Subject does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 02:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 05:54, 4 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy characters[edit]

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

Only one source, this article does not enough sources and it has no real world coverage to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 08:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a typical split-off article from a notable television series article, so insisting on the notability of the characters apart from the series is missing the point. Obviously the characters of a series need to be described in order to have comprehensive coverage of that series, so the only options are to keep as a stand-alone list or to merge to the series article, not to delete outright. It's clearly too long for The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy to incorporate it (even if the entire "minor characters" section were removed), so stand-alone it is. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted by Postdlf, this would require either merger or a keep. The current article is too long to merge comfortably, so... Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated above, a series of this type deserves some sort of character list. Without it, there would not be proper coverage of the series. I also believe that sources could be found if one looked hard enough. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:35, 2 June 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 characters in Camp Lazlo. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lazlo (character)[edit]

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

Clearly, this article has 8 sources and not enough real world or third party coverage to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 08:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination does not provide a clear reason to delete. The character is the lead in an award-winning show whose notability seems indisputable and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for complete deletion here. At most this should be a merge to the character article.--76.66.185.169 (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per nom. The reason's clear enough, this article is failing notabiity guidelines. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of characters in Camp Lazlo. It has weak coverage in third party reliable sources. Not enough for a full article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No independent notability, no out-of-universe views. --Crusio (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge Clear cut case of notability issues. Weak coverage in independent sources. 74.198.9.247 (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Dangerous Goods Code Class 7 - Radioactive Materials[edit]

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

This new article describing an obscure dangerous goods handling protocol appears to violate WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:N. Please note that this was a contested prod and is one of five similar new articles, each created by a different editor as their first contribution. This articles may form a school project, though I see no way of confirming this (see WP:AWNB#New articles on the handling of dangerous materials for a related discussion). Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTGUIDE. informative but it can be found on the relevant standards website not WP. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick-D and LibStar, while it is informative, Wikipedia isn't a place for this type of information. Maybe we need to have a law Wiki for this type of article? Bidgee (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This might be useful at wikiHow. As an original work its out of scope for Wikisource. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick-D and Libstar. Orderinchaos 09:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Merge a short summary into the Australian Dangerous Goods Code article, which needs work. This is not an unlikely search term, and may in the future be a good sub article if the main one gets too long. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer Above. Five Years 11:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tsavo (band)[edit]

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

Band does not appear to meet notability standards. Albums independently released. No charting or major awards. Airplay not national rotation. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. None of sources provided are independent reliable sources. Nothing more found. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When all your sources are Myspace or similar sites, it's very unlikely that you pass our band inclusion standards. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Conflict Resolution Trainers Group[edit]

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

blatantly fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews nor gbooks. google mainly reveals WP mirrors and directory listings. those wanting to keep should show actual evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:15, 30 May 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. I am withdrawing my nomination - good catch with the references, and especially for adding them to the article. Too often, people mention references being available, but do not add them - if I am looking at an article for deletion and find references, I will usually (subject to family and work commitments!) try to add them to the article - if not immediately, then as soon as time permits afterwards. I haven't checked the sources thoroughly, but I trust Paul Erik's judgement on this matter! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Montreal[edit]

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

Despite being 10 years old, all the references I can find are either minor mentions, press releases or not at independent and/or reliable sources. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In the interests of full transparency, I blocked one of the contributors to this article (User:Popmontreal) as the account is either meant to be an "official account" (which is not allowed) or is being used for promotional purposes — the account was created in April this year. This was after I had made some minor changes to the article — I then looked at the article again after blocking the user, and thought that it did not meet the criteria for inclusion, hence this AfD.PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed what appeared to be a copyright violation, and then added a number of citations, just a sampling of the coverage that exists. National newspapers such as The Globe and Mail and the National Post have written in detail about the festival, as have more local sources such as La Presse, the Montreal Gazette, and the Montreal Mirror. CBC Radio now covers it regularly, and concert reviews from the festival's shows regularly appear in national music magazines Chart and Exclaim! – see the talk page as well. Keep, as the subject easily meets WP:N. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, references provided after nomination establish notability pretty convincingly. PK T(alk) 16:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nightcore (band)[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS material to support notability for this band. Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be eminently non-notable. No coverage, no evidence of releases, listed as 'unsigned' on MySpace.--Michig (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
just kill it, not to mention there's a thing going in youtube that's called nightcoring every song out there, making it difficult to tell if it's user generated or by them. Pyromania153 (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

on an added note these groups tend to be underground, making the aforementioned notes more enforced. Pyromania153 (talk) 20:27, 31 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Al Alsaud[edit]

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

Non-notable "socialite". Google search results in no relevant hits. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just a simple fact of a woman who lived an life that most woman dreamed about but she maintains her privacy at cost. Just because its someone you can't google up or famous does not constitute that they're not important to society. There are many unheard of prominent people thats not written about nor discussed upon. As the wording goes 'socialite' have been revised to jet set, which madame is. I have corrected the wording and followed the guidelines as concerns go. Please, consider of not deleting this article as this woman have much to offer and need to be known about. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver McNamara (talk • contribs)

Delete. No sources provided or found to meet general notability guidelines. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With this edit by Oliver McNamara and and this edit by an anonymous IP, I'm beginning to suspect the whole thing is a hoax. The story is starting to change about her. Now she is supposedly related to a notable individual and instead of being the ex-wife of somebody, she is now still married to that somebody. And the sockpuppets have started to arrive on the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There needs to be some reliable sources in order for Wikipedia editors to be able to write an article about her with verifiable information. Right now, the article is completely unsourced, so I don't know how we could prove that this biography is accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for want of verifiable sources. If this subject is real she's escaped the radar totally. The fact that the Google results show very little outside Facebook and Twitter doesn't inspire confidence. The man named as her multi-millionaire husband is even more invisible... HeartofaDog (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with GogoDodo, according to those edits the story about her is changing too much. Not to mention the fact it is beyond notable for Wikipedia: no sources, no actual information aside from her alleged marriage to a man. SwisterTwister (talk) 07:05, 6 June 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 the argument about a merge fails on the lack of sourcing for this material and the fact that the concept is already covered so this is redundant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omniscient technology[edit]

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

This phrase does not appear in any scholarly work that I can find: Google searches show only its use by marketing entities. It appears that someone affiliated with http://www.pivotmylife.com/ has created this entry in an attempt to beef up the company website (there's a link to the wikipedia article in their mission statement). But, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought re: WP:FORUM! I therefore propose that this page should be deleted. If, in time, this phrase is adopted and used beyond Dr. Fedkiw's websites, I would then support the page being reestablished. Notmeorhim (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a neologism, and a not very clearly defined one at that. Borock (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 11 May 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, -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though this phrase was coined by Prof. Fedkiw, it has shown up in other places as well, particularly in relation to Little/Big Brother type scenarios. For example, see http://webpages.scu.edu/ftp/BRebboah/omniscient.html . However, it seems what Prof. Fedkiw is trying to encourage is the use of technology in ways that aren't viewed in such a negative light as Big Brother, but instead are seen as playing as key a role in society as the PC or cellphone. Other academics have used the word to refer to the growing presence of technology in every aspect of human life, such as this paper from NASA http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009SPIE.7490E..74H . There have also been books on this topic, see Landauer, T. (1988). Education in a world of omnipotent and omniscient technology. In R. Nickerson & P. Zodhiates (Eds.), Technology in Education: Looking toward 2020. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Seems like the word (and more importantly the meaning for the word that is represented on the wikipage) is prevalent in academia and literature. Spunkymonkey23 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another thing to point out is these references date back to 1988, and possibly earlier, so I would argue that the word Omniscient Technology isn't a neologism. Spunkymonkey23 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- I have contemplated adding a ((Rescue)) tag to the article. Am close to doing so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be some acceptance of this term. More sourced content is needed so I will tag this with ((Rescue)).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article is very poorly sourced and there is little evidence in the wider literature of acceptance of this neologism/term-of-art (as opposed to just random juxtaposition of this adjective-noun combination). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:16, 26 May 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 5 gnews hits says it all for its wide usage. fails WP:GNG. [34]. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to ~~Technology for mass surveillance~~ Surveillance technology(redirect page to Surveillance)-the term has 6070 hits at Google Scholar. The term Omniscient technology lacks notability, but the topic does not; I'm sure there's significant media and scholar coverage about this subject. Lifestreaming, Google's mission to organize the world's information, some Microsoft concept designs for always-on personal video recording... Just look at Mass_surveillance#Commercial_mass_surveillance to see that the concept has been covered, even though the term hasn't been. There are several references at the article that establish notability for the topic ([35], [36], [37]), so WP:GNG is met. Diego Moya (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTESSAY, this is unencyclopaedic unless entirely rewritten. Anthem 19:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? In which way do you think this article not encyclopedic? Diego Moya (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the parts of the article that are about current technology might (assuming that they aren't redundant) be suitable for merger into Mass surveillance or similar. However the material on the neologism, and speculation about the future omniscience of surveillance technology, that is the core of this article, does not belong in Wikipedia. Renaming the article (to 'Technology for mass surveillance' or 'Surveillance technology') would appear to only create a lopsided WP:CFORK of Mass surveillance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:44, 6 June 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shanxing Wang[edit]

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

Another non-notable poet. This one was interviewed in Jacket, and was mentioned in an essay, and that's all I could find. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Fails WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has won the 2006 Asian American Literary Award for Poetry, I added a citation for it to the article Jztinfinity (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe we should ask a Mandarin speaker to look for some more sources. We are allowed to do that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 22 May 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 3 June 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. votes by spa/new users are traditionally accorded less weight then those of established editors unless thearguments given are well founded in policy. Proffered sources have been refuted so the only policy grunded arguments left are the deletion ones Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Train Cable UAV[edit]

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

Article deleted once already, "proded" on 9 December 2010. The subject of this topic has no objective reviews, only material sourced from the concept owners. The defensive weapon system has not been adopted by any buyers. It is not notable. Binksternet (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As you can see in this link (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/04/06/355279/video-iai-offers-latin-american-users-tethered-uav.html and http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/06/israels-rail-ri/ )the concept is merging and in aviation 5 years is the minimum norm for concept to be merged in to reality.After the failure of the SBInet with the concept of towers and the high costs of implementing UAVs like the Predator UAV,http://securitydebrief.com/2011/02/02/predator-uav-costs-an-analysis-of-alternatives-that-needs-further-analysis/, plus the FAA restriction on flying UAVs above USA borders (60 meters have no restrictions )and the political issues of flying UAVs near borders (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-us-flies-drones-in-mexican-drug-war-031611/) this concept could be merged into reality ,the operational cost using electic energy and queues of UAVs (Theory of Constraints) compensate the high cost of infrastructure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationman (talk • contribs) 09:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link goes to Arie Egozi's article in Flightglobal from April 2011. Egozi writes about a tethered UAV which attaches to a ground vehicle, not a rail vehicle or "train". This reference does not help establish "Train Cable UAV" as a topic worth keeping.
Your second link to the Wired article only talks about a concept for Train UGVs, not Train UGVs fitted with a cable connecting to a flying UAV. The Wired article does not help establish the topic.
All of your other links shown above do not talk about TCUAV and can be ignored.
A reference in the article from TFOT, and another one from Flightglobal, announce the concept in November 2007, but neither article lists any users. Without users, a concept weapon is literally useless. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only source is a press release and articles which essentially restate / rephrase the release. No independent examinations of the subject. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ : There is independent examinations of the subjet , http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2007004217A1&KC=A1&FT=D&date=20070111&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP , which found it usable and novel , a patent was granted . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationman (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that link only goes to a patent page. Patented ideas do not automatically earn notability on Wikipedia, they have to be discussed in mainstream media or used by mainstream users to earn their place here. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot offer two !votes in the same discussion. I've struck out the second one for the benefit of the closing admin. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it was an edit and novice mistake I didn't intend for two votes only debate remark--Aviationman (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : It was publish in the general media , it was patent so it is novel , the question is : does some one in the wikipedia sphere will ever want to benefit from that knowledge ? I think yes . --213.8.52.84 (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the above IP address comes from Ramat Gan in Israel, just a 20-minute drive from Rishon Le Zion where the company Planum Vision is located. Planum Vision is the owner of the TCUAV concept. The IP address appears to be randomly assigned to various users including vandals. It could easily be the same person as Aviationman, voting twice. Binksternet (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Most of israeli ISPs are in Tel Aviv ,Ramat Gan ,and Rosh Hain , and most of israeli population is concentrated in Tel Aviv suburbs which is one hour drive radius.--Aviationman (talk) 13:44, 30 May 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I considered a merge into Unmanned aerial vehicle, none of the references offered in this AfD by Aviationman mention the article topic, and the two references in the article that do are pretty light. If we allowed an article for every single un-produced UAV concept we'd have hundreds of mostly unreferenced, unlinked articles. Some of the folks from Planum Vision seem to be following this debate, and I would suggest that you come back and try again when you've gotten broader press coverage. When you do try again, please post the article to Train cable UAV, not Train Cable UAV, by the way. :) A Train^talk 09:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it doesn't belong to that category in the same way that trains don't belond to car category they are both under the transportation category --Aviationman (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC) .[reply]

Aviationman, are you saying that this aircraft system has more in common with a train than with a UAV? I don't think I get what you're saying. A Train^talk 20:14, 30 May 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 Carlton Main Frickley Colliery Band. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frickley Colliery Brass Band[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A "training band" of younger and less experienced musicians, for a notable brass band, the Carlton Main Frickley Colliery Band which has its own article. References can be deceiving, pointing to the more notable band of a similar name. Lacks references to satisfy WP:ORG. Previous AFD in 2006 was "No consensus." Community bands such as this are very common and do not in general get Wikipedia articles. Edison (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carlton Main Frickley Colliery Band after merging appropriate content to that article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, seems to lack independent notability. Chester Markel (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 22 May 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, as per above. A Train^talk 10:07, 30 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Christian Fellowship[edit]

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

similar article was recently deleted for the same organisation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overseas Christian Fellowship Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Organisation is notable, with several gbooks hits. The existence of this article was a factor in the previous AfD. -- 202.124.88.183 (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete This is not a notable organization. Google Books hits consist of one passing mention, otherwise only directories. A search of Google News Archive finds nothing significant. --MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Paul foord (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Paul foord (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Books turns up one 45 page book for me, with no preview it sounds more like an advertising pamphlet. Regardless, one little book + fleeting mentions in a couple of other books do not constitute "significant coverage". Just like the other AfD, this blatantly fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer aboveFive Years 11:30, 3 June 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol country artists[edit]

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

Does not meet the list criteria as a notable subject for a standalone list; the main List of American Idol finalists is not so long as to be unmanagable, and this list is fairly arbitrary in its subject matter. This seems like the exact sort of random categorization that WP:SALAT warns against. Jayron32 00:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:UNDUE. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep listing contestants via musical genre is reasonable, non-arbitrary means of thematic organization. Chester Markel (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not exactly what this is though; it's basically a relisting of things that are already in the other article without elaboration. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see the other article organized by musical genre. Chester Markel (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this is a pretty terse list, I don't think "country music" is an inappropriate division of "music" (even though I personally can't stand the genre...). There's not enough of a problem here to be worth deleting this, IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this supposed to be an article or a list? I also do not understand the criteria for inclusion, since it omits a country contestant while on the show, Lindsey Cardinale, and has contestants that were not country on the show but came out with country albums, Diana DeGarmo, Phil Stacey, Michael Sarver and Danny Gokey. The article also states "successful" but Carmen Rasmussen's albums and songs did not chart, DeGarmo's country EP did not chart, Jessica Sierra's album, EP and songs did not chart, Sarver's album charted at #58 on US Country and no songs charted. Everyone else had at least a top ten album on US Country. Aspects (talk) 05:44, 27 May 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Findie[edit]

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

Brand new website just launched this month. Doesn't meet WP:WEB nor does it meet WP:GNG. Desktopmag source seems more like a press release with this verbage "Our projects are always a collective effort, enabling each contributor to do their best in the area that they specialise. Findie was no different." Appears to be WP:UPANDCOMING. v/r - T P 03:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of the coverage required by notability guidelines. Nuttah (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 3 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altoona Central Catholic School[edit]

Altoona Central Catholic School is the most notable school is Altoona. This is ridiculous if it is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelers628 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:Notability Elementary/Middle Schools are not considered inherently notable and this particular school does not appear to be notable. Unexplained PROD decline by article creator. Safiel (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Altoona-Johnstown#Schools in accord with standard practice.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Altoona-Johnstown#Schools; as a primary/middle school with no sourced claim to notability. TerriersFan (talk) 21:50, 3 June 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. Its now Tuesday and the keep side have not substantiated the claim of sources and the analysis of teh sources suggests they are not sunstantial enough to justify keeping this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-cult trauma[edit]

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

Can't find any source WP:RS describing "post cult trauma" all sources merely relate that trauma is possible phenomenon that can potentially occur when involved with such movements. "Post cult syndrome" seems to have no recognition from any organized body of mental health professionals. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and fails WP:MEDRS. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well known term in the anti-cult movement. If you can not find reputable sources then look at the listed references of Jan van der Lans and Margaret Singer Andries (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete may warrant a brief mention in an article on the anti-cult movement, but right now this article seems to violate WP:IINFO and is questionably sourced. eldamorie (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known term in the anti-cult movement. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should be able to show multiple WP:RS that address the topic directly and coherently instead of random hodgepodge of indiscriminate information that is strung together. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, no need, because there is nothing wrong with the listed references by Jan van der Lans and Margaret Singer. Andries (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're failing WP:SIGCOV the two source is not enough for [WP:MEDRS]] which is a stricter standard isolated papers by two authors are not enough. Besides Jan van der Lans's paper is published in obscure out of print journal. [[[User:ResidentAnthropologist|The Resident Anthropologist]] (talk)•(contribs) 15:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I guess David Bromley has commented on the theory too. The article was never in a medical category, nor is this AFD. Andries (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It purports itself to be medical syndrome. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking at the Bromley source doesn't back up anything at all. Just vague mention of trauma and cult that does not address the subject of the article directly which is WP:SYNTH. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Paul Martin addressed the subject directly. The same quote was also used somewhere else, but I need time to find it. I will look into Bromley who must have written about the subject somewhere, sometime. Andries (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Melton addresses the subject directly enough, I think. Andries (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources are reliable, thus there is no proof this term is notable per WP:GNG. I found zero Ghits on Google news, and piles of junk science at Google. The seven articles at Google scholar are very much a mixed bag - a draft of this article, a link to answer.com, and a book on Google books, none of which are reliable sources. I don't see how this even passes WP:FRINGE as a fringe theory or pop psychology. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, aside from the numerous references already in the article, has received significant coverage across multiple secondary sources from different fields. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note I was tempted to close this as delete as all the keep votes are assertions. If the keep side wants to be weighted they need to say exactly what sources they are relying on so that they can be evaluated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give me time until Sunday to check sources. (Some are already listed in the article as reference and I do not understand why you need to check google in such a case.)Andries (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Many uses of the term[38][39] are restricted to the works of Carol Giambalvo or reFOCUS, the anti-cult support group she co-founded. I think this concept would certainly have a place in an article about the group or its beliefs, but we don't have one of those (and I offer no opinion whether it meets reliability standards). Outside of reFOCUS, there are uses of the term in books from 2003[40] and 2010[[41]. I do not think either is sufficiently substantive coverage to assert notability. That's doubly true if the community feels that WP:MEDRS should apply here. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craigslist (song)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NSONGS in that it has not charted on a national record chart, nor has it been performed by multiple notable artists or won awards. Additionally its not notable per WP:GNG. An independent article simply isn't required where there isn't sufficient detail for a lengthy and comprehensive article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending release and development of the next album article Alpocylpse. This article passes the GNG clearly (NPR, Spinner and Cnet are reliable and secondary sources), but it is on the short side. A merge is possible if the album article (which will contain this song) is short and can be organized to include this, but that can't be assessed until after the album's out. Note to the nominator that the criteria in NSONGS does not superceed the GNG - they are meant as an alternative if the GNG cannot be met immediately as a sign of presumption of notability. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, songs should not be created in anticipation of notability. WP:NSONGS makes that very clear. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, this has notability by the GNG. This song was out way before it was known it would be on a retail album. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being out for months means nothing in relation to notability. WP:NSONGS is a project based guideline policy for music which specifically applies GNG. It states that aside from having enough information (sourced from reliable third-party sources) for songs to exist as independent articles, they must chart and/or receieve recognised awards or being covered/performed by several notable artists. GNG (as the name implies) is simply the general notability guideline. However, where an article falls into a specific project, if A SPECIFIC guideline exists, that should be applied first. There is nothing about information on this page that couldn't be merged to the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken as to how the GNG and the subnotability guidelines interaction. They are an either-or proposition. If the GNG is not met, then one can see if the topic meets a subnotability guideline like NSONGS. Even the first line of NSONGS says All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article meets the GNG since the song is discussed in depth from these sources. I'm not saying it can't be merged once the full album is out, but even without that album, this song is notable. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Alpocalypse or Internet Leaks. As noted in WP:NSONGS, few songs qualify for individual articles, and "Craigslist" doesn't seem to meet those criteria - no significant chart positions, no awards or honors, and no performances by multiple artists. Articles for both Alpocalypse or Internet Leaks have been around for a while and are logical destinations for a merge.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it meets the core criteria of WP:GNG, which is sufficient for an article now. Again, I'm not against a merge to Alpocalypse once the album article has been developed fully and there's room to accommodate this. But I am against a merge now, as the song is notable on its own and the final state of Alpocalypse is yet known. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I already noted, WP:NSONGS(a far more logical guideline to use than general WP guidelines, which are obviously extremely limited since they have to apply to all WP content) clearly indicates that the song doesn't merit a separate article. It's not just a matter of notability; it's a matter of logical organization of Wikipedia. If you don't think Alpocalypse is a good target for a merge, then it would make sense to merge it to Internet Leaks instead.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - That is not how subnotability guidelines work. They work either/or with the GNG. If you are trying to judge if a topic should have its own article you first see if you meet the general requirements (the GNG), and if you fail that, you may have a chance to include it by the more specific subnotability guidelines. Otherwise you are immediately omitting songs that may be from non-notable artists that never chart but that have sufficient detail from secondary sources about them. The whole point of NSONGS saying that a charting song is notable is that that's a good presumption of notability to ultimately meet the GNG itself, not to say it is the only way a song article can be made. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's first four references - [42][43][44][45] - plus this sampling of additional sources - [46][47][48][49][50] - demonstrate that the song has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Per WP:NSONGS, it is not suggested that a song must have been covered, charted or been awarded in order to be notable, only that those songs which fit that set of criteria are indeed "probably notable". The guideline goes on to state: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This implies a "reasonably detailed" song article is one that goes beyond a stub - a standard which in my estimation has been (or easily can be) satisfied given the information contained within the aforementioned sources. Gongshow ^Talk 03:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per meeting GNG and having enough information for a reasonably detailed article (which this already is). Merge would be the next option, but don't see an obvious merge target and adding all the sourced information from this article to a merge target would likely give undue weight to this song. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 6 June 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. There was consensus of people who addressed the question that the article met GNG, which is sufficient. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perform This Way[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NSONGS in that it has not charted on a national record chart, nor has it been performed (mind the pun) by multiple notable artists or won awards. The information contained is already present in the article for the song which this is based on, Born This Way (song). Additionally its not notable per WP:GNG as virtually all of the references are primary. An independent article simply isn't required where there isn't sufficient detail. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song received widespread media attention when it was disapproved by Gaga's manager, more attention when Gaga provided approval, more attention when the album release and summer tour was announced. Article is referenced with citations to the Los Angeles Times, TMZ, and New York Times, these are more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are secondary sources. Material is worthy of coverage in Wikipedia—I think a separate article is reasonable, but if not, it can be merged into the album's article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP:NSONGS is implicit that songs which have not charted are not notable. Equally its only notable because Gaga denied permission for the song to be released only to back track. Its not notable because it actually receieved mentions of its own merits. A lof of the sourcing is Yankonvic's own personal blog. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONGS is a guideline tells us what is probably notable. It is not implicit in telling us what isn't notable. There are 3 citations out of 10 which are to the artist's blog, the remainder are to reliable, non-primary sources where the song and related controversy has been widely covered. This is sounding a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--RadioFan (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all rather, allow me to quote the guideline to you because it appears to be misunderstood. The opening line of the guideline states: This page provides a guideline of how the concept of notability applies to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs. Not that this guideline tells us what's probably notable. The following line states probability (that I will accept): Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Let me then point out the following lines Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. It is this latter part of the guideline which I'm alluding to, the fact that the song has been released for over a month and has failed to chart. A significant proportion of the information here is already mentioned at Born This Way (song) and the relevence of the song being recorded and released is more relevant in the album's page. Taking all that into account, an independent article for this song breaches our notability guideline. And as for the number of references taken from the personal blog, its information source from the blog not the volume of references that counts here. This is a case of trying to enforce our notability guideline not some case of fans vs. no fans, which its trying to be made out to be. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't counting references, I was refuting your claim that "a lot" of the sourcing came from a primary source. That's not the case with nearly 3/4 coming from reliable sources. Also, I think you are a bit confused as the song has not been released so it remains to be seen if it will chart. Charting while and excellent way to meet WP:NSONGS but it's not the only way. A song that has garnered so much attention, even before its released, certainly meets WP:GNG. I'm a bit confused by your last comment, do you wish the article deleted or merged? If it's the later, that could be done in a far less disruptively by tagging the article with ((merge)) and sharing your thoughts on the matter on the article's talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline speaks of a detailed article. This is not a detailed article. The reference in the infobox suggests that the song has was released on April 25, 2011. Independent articles should not exist where information is not detailed, and where the information is better served elsewhere. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Born This Way (song). In the event that the song charts independently, it can be split off. Joe407 (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to pursue this as a recommendation, a note should be left on that article's talk page. The little monsters are not likely to take the suggestion well.--RadioFan (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this motion. Merge to Born This Way (song) would be a good compromise in that the only thing which may make this song is coverage it recieved regarding Gaga's initial disapproval of the cover. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good compromise. The song is independently notable, and is supported by significant coverage in 3rd party sources where the song is the subject of the coverage.--RadioFan (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Radio's assertion of notability, because most other Weird Al singles have articles, and because it most likely has charted on a comedy-centered chart Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Other stuff exists and WP:WAX the existance of other Weird Al song articles does not make this one notable. Equally the likelihood of charting doesn't make it notable. If its charted brilliant, add it to the article, if it hasn't we're certainly not gonna speculate. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to "BTW". That's the best option. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a notable song by a notable artist. And if it does get merged it should be to Alpocalypse, because it is going to appear on that album. JDDJS (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RadioFan's arguments. Also note that the nominator's above argument that "its only notable because Gaga denied permission for the song to be released only to back track" makes an admission that the song is, in fact, notable. --Maxa megalon 2000 20:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I remember the WP:FICT wars, and the general consensus from then is that if a subject is notable under the General Notability Guideline, it is notable even if it fails a subject-specific notability guideline. As RadioFan has shown this, and as I can vividly remember the multitude of sources from the end of April, this is notable. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BMI, Billboard, Los Angeles Times and TMZ are not primary sources, as stated by nominator. VK per above. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 05:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Growing weary of these ridiculous discussions. An obvious delete.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge The article has some independent notability, with coverage in several reliable sources. At the moment I feel it could easily be merged into Born This Way (song), however with further info yet to come (music video, other promotion and coverage) it is probable that much of this will be lost in a merge. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not notable enough. It has not charted stronger articles have been deleted. The information is useless and it is not very well written and if not deleted it should be merged with BTW article. FeuDeJoie

Keep - Charting or covers by multiple artists mean a song is probably notable under WP:NSONGS, but not charting or having been covered does not make a song non-notable if the song meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 6 June 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. BLP1E joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Knyazev (diplomat)[edit]

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

Mentions in the media for the single event of a fatal drunk driving conviction over a decade ago. (There are several other people with the same name who have Wikipedia articles so search engine results need to be carefully examined to sort out who is who.) FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 01:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an event that is still studied in international public law classes in Canada. ... discospinster _talk 04:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for exactly the same reason as discospinster.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Everyone is entitled to add their reason. Without being accused by "deletionists". Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, if you exactly agree with discospinster, please provide some sources for this subject being studied in canadian law subjects. LibStar (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:BLP1E Knyazev is notable for a single event, and hence should be deleted under that policy. However, the event itself may be notable, and it should be covered, perhaps as a few lines at most in diplomatic immunity. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? ^{Two pints of lager} 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "still studied in international public law classes in Canada" is not a criterion for notability. If it still persisted in mainstream media perhaps. WP:BLP1E applies here. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Knyazev is only known for one event, "drunk driving". Knyazev falls under WP:BLP1E. Information on Knyazev is already found in Diplomatic immunity#Diplomatic incidents section. --Vic49 (talk) 14:15, 6 June 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'm likely going to get trouted for this, but between this being a borderline speedy (G10) and a arguable WP:SNOW delete, I'm calling this one done. I don't see any plausible way this AfD will close with any other result. My rationale for this SNOW/borderline WP:IAR is that the BLP issues in the article are of sufficient weight to not let this sit for another five days. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Letitia Libman[edit]

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

This article on a living person is absolutely filled with WP:BLP violations, e.g. "On June 8, 2005, Dr. Libman has the dubious distinction of receiving the "Creme de la Weird" award in Chuck Shepherd's popular "News of the Weird" column". It mostly focuses on her criminal and media history. It is quite referenced, but my major concerns are the multiple BLP violations. Raymie (t • c) 00:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to the BLP noticeboard as well. 00:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete. If the person were notable, we could clean out the BLP violations, but as far as I can tell, she is only notable for controversy and nothing else. The article sounds like it was created by someone who has a grudge against her.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia really isn't the place for this. Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a mess of BLP violations and OR per Bbb23. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more or less an attack page. Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Heck, it's borderline whether or not this article would qualify for a WP:CSD#A7 speedy. To the extent that there's any (poorly written, buried lede) claim for notability in the article, it's that Libman was accused of using witchcraft to treat psychiatric patients in multiple lawsuits. While the fact that the allegations were made and the suits were filed is well-documented, it appears that the cases were dismissed. As the article is mostly about these cases, WP:UNDUE is a massive problem. Libman doesn't seem notable for any other reason, so WP:BLP1E applies and is strong reason to delete the article. If the UNDUE issue were resolved, the article would have no useful content. Therefore, an uncontroversial delete. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If any speedy, wouldn't WP:CSD#G10 be best? There is no neutral revision: compare to the opening revision from AfC. I'm inclined to start upgrading this to a G10 speedy. It's very bad. Raymie (t • c) 18:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is in favor of keeping the article at this time. Due to the fact that this is a Ukrainian band, there will be few or no sources in English. Addtionally, there are five interwiki links and quite a few Google books and news sources, suggesting the subject may be notable. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Rooster[edit]

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

This band article was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed without any explanation as to why it met the A7 prod criteria. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is interwiki-linked to five other articles on other language projects. This could either be an indication of notability (in which case searching in English may not turn up foreign-language sources indicating notability), or it could be a case of cross-wiki spamming. The other language articles all have multiple editors, which suggests the second possibility is not the case. Deli nk (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If we have foreign-language RS sourcing that reflects notability, that would be good. Do those articles contain such RS notability-reflecting sourcing?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are references and external links in the interwiki-linked articles, but I'm sorry I can't help evaluate their reliability. It will take someone who speaks those languages. (... or perhaps Google Translate could help?) Deli nk (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ukrainian isn't one of my strongest languages, but I can read enough to see that most of these books and these news articles refer to the article subject, with many of those potential sources having significant coverage. My Polish is a lot better, leading me to this book with three pages of coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as some of the sources presented in support of the notability of this band -- such as the very first one in the books link presented above -- precede the creation of the band, it is perhaps possible that various of the sources presented do not refer to the band itself. And, of course, there is the issue of whether sources are "reliable sources".--Epeefleche (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are some false positives, such as the book that you mentioned which writes about a painting of a dead bird, but the search results with a capital "М" and quotation marks, ("Мертвий півень" or «Мертвий півень») are all, as far as I can tell from the snippets provided, about this band. As regards reliability, the next three Google Books results are a journal from Naukova Dumka,[51] an encyclopedia published by the Lviv Academic Library,[52] and a chronicle of Ukraine published by the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,[53] so I don't think there's any problem there. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've gone throught interwiki articles and the sources, but it's hard to really evaluate the references without speaking the languages. In the absence of a Ukrainian to help make sense of it all, I suggest we err on the side of keeping the article.--Kubigula (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghost (Faroese band)[edit]

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

This 2-sentence band article was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed without any explanation as to why it met the A7 prod criteria. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been slightly extended by me and another editor. — fnielsen (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that it's not a particularly notable band. But the RS references in the article -- GAFFA magazine (essentially Denmark's equivalent of Rolling Stone) [54], [55] , and Danish National Broadcasting [56] plus an interview on the Faroe Islands Podcast [57] -- provide enough coverage to pass our minimal criteria for notability and verifiability. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think WP:Notability (local interests) comes into play here. For those who don't understand why see Faroe Islands. Being a large fish in a small pond (I'm sorry if that English expression confuses) can, and should, confer the notability Wikipeida demands, and they have established some interest internationally. --AJHingston (talk) 09:32, 30 May 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 Van Pelt Library. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weigle Information Commons[edit]

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

Non-notable study/technology-resource space in a college library. This is a massive page with no virtually no encyclopediac content at all (WP:UNDUE). Extensive list of software and student study-space configurations? The minutiae of the building/design process? List of major donors? The major claims of notability appear to be how often it's used by students and how many or how modern its resources, all self-sourced, all "nothing special about this compared to every other school's similar-sounding thing". Seems more like a compendium of the project's own website than a WP article. DMacks (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are new to Wikipedia and will update our entry after reviewing the comments and suggestions above. We will get in touch in a few days with questions and requests for clarification. Pennwic (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just took a crack at editing/rewriting the article, taking into account DMacks's highly relevant criticisms. The original article certainly went well past what a WP is generally expected to be, but a Google Scholar search shows that its notability extends beyond that of a simple study space. (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Weigle+Information+Commons%22 for details) It absolutely needs additional edits, but it is much improved, and in its current state makes much less sense as a candidate for deletion.

-Bindingtheory (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Why do we need a separate article on just part of the campus library system? This is something that belongs within the Van Pelt Library article. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Haryana[edit]

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

This list is actively harmful, because there is no reason to believe any of it is accurate. I checked A through H (mind you, I have no idea what that organization means, since the alleged villages are not listed in alphabetical order), and, of the blue links (which are themselves a vast minority), exactly 2 lead to actual articles on villages in Haryana. The rest led to villages in other states, countries, last names of people, dab pages (which had no links to Haryana villages)...This is not a case of something which can be corrected through editing. There is no source for the overall list, and thus no reason to believe it's anything other than a random collection of made up places. Working from this list actually makes it harder to improve the encyclopedia, not easier. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many villages are non-existent Sonu N (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So Milk and Chicken aren't articles about villages in this state? This list is practically unfixable, so deleting is the only practical solution. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No "practically" about it. This is perhaps the worst-organized, least-accurate list I've ever seen on the project. It is so bad that it is tempting to wonder if intentional disinformation is involved. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brunette Models[edit]

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

I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==== Reply ====

What exactly is in the details of this problem? What does it mean "RS"?

Look, and when it comes to popularity in the same network only, this is a main problem, that Poland and Cyprus joined the EU in 2004. Very late for social web. Western countries already have long been out of the political Iron Curtain. For this there is a significant difference in the amount of information. If for example, in Poland there was something very popular, it is not necessarily visible on the network yet. This is particularly true of the 90's and earlier. Brunette Models isn't "an amateur with laptop only." It's a professional musician with many synthesizers. About BM is a lot of media publications. After problems with the portal Redwatch, began to protect your private image and not made public pictures etc. BM began in parallel with eg Biosphere (Geir Jenssen), but the first was behind the Iron Curtain, and the other had access to Western discourse. If we assume that the popularity measure only what is recorded in the network, it will confine ourselves to virtual reality.

For example, the memories for years I'm looking for a watch from the 80's, I had that, I wore it and I liked, but the Internet is no more. Nothing. Does this mean that only I dreamed about that?

What this article should be added that it was not removed?

Marylinex (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

==== ====

Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for interest! @Epeefleche: Thank you for help! I tried to add references and other additions to the article and I hope soon to reach the standards of Wikipedia, and this article will avoid removal. Γραφή (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Note that it is perfectly acceptable to use non-English sources. I'm guessing that you may be able to help us there (They should, at the same time, be "reliable sources", as described above). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do more now? I think the article is finished now. If you think that not, please tell me. Γραφή (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It sure is difficult to find references to back this article up that meet WP:RS. However, there are some hardcopy publications with articles that are listed as references/sources that are specialised publications in the field of electronic music and musical sculpture, there is a mention in Polish Newsweek, and there are minor mentions at commercial music websites. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The magazines seem good if they can be verified. A lot of the search results couldn't be salvaged, but this site [58] offering an album quoted three reviews, which are these [59] [60] [61] - frankie (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Panchkula district[edit]

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

Looking through this "list", almost all of it is redlinked. None of it is sourced. Of the blue links, I have found, so far, exactly one that links to a village in Panchukla district (Pinjore). There is no reason to believe that this list is an actual, accurate list of Panchkula district villages. Even if it were, actually getting it to the point where it contained no information instead of innaccurate information (as it does now) would be far more work than starting over with what we know for sure is an accurate list. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—It should be quite possible to compare the list to the Indian census,[62] then cleanup accordingly.—RJH (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although not as blindingly bad as a similar article by the same creator currently up for AFD, I'm no more convinced about the accuracy of this content. If we are to have an article at this title, it will need to be rebuilt entirely from a reliable source. Trying to use this material as a roadmap is actually worse than having nothing at all. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, this, in fact, is my point. Re:RJH's point, if someone wants to recreate this article based on the government census data, I think that's a great idea. I think that doing that from scratch will be significantly easier than somehow trying to integrate it with this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think that it needs to be started from scratch, if at all. There are far too many issues regarding veracity. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 5 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Dead[edit]

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

Unreferenced since December 2009, fails to meet WP:NALBUM since it's unlikely it will be expanded beyond its current state. I only managed to find one blog review (metal-observer) and one review on sputnikmusic, but it was a user-submitted review, not a staff review. Neither help achieve notability. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if this helps, but I found several ”professional” reviews in Finnish (my native language): Soundi, Noise.fi, Mesta.net, Imperiumi.net, Findance.com and Desibeli.net. And these in English: Metal Rules, Metal Storm (user-submitted?) and Lords of Metal. Several in German as well, but I won’t include them here as I don’t really know the language. The album and the single ”Same Old Song” have also charted on the Swedish and the Finnish charts, which is at least information that the article can easily be expanded with. –Kooma (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those absolutely would help. Sources in foreign languages are fine and the charting would solidify the notability. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and [63]; peaked at number 3 in the Swedish Albums Chart with 7 weeks being in the charts, and peaked at number 16 with 4 weeks being in the charts. Ask User:Kai81 if he can find more of these indie sources, especially since he is from Finland and an expert in respect of music industry.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 16:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Benson[edit]

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

Not notable. Recurring role on Wizards of Waverly place and roles in several non-notable movies (red links The Rig (2010 film) and Hanna's Gold. Assorted appearances elsewhere. Unable to find substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Search turns up the usual (IMDb, twitter, blogs and such) and bare mentions on mtv.com and slobbering praise at perezhilton.com. SummerPhD (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete 1. He only has a significant role in only one series "Wizards of Waverly Place." Notability requires significant roles in multiple significant series or movies. 2. He has no significant "cult" following. 3. He has made no significant innovation to his field. Therefore he fails WP:Notability (people) as it applies to film and television actors. Safiel (talk) 17:58, 30 May 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. While there is little comment here the issue has been open for an extended period and has previously been discussed at length. Seems to be a consensus that such material is routinely included, but a lack of consensus over whether splitting it out to a sub-article is proper. In the absence of consensus the sub-article is retained as is. CBD 12:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Day-by-day summaries of the 2011 Australian Open[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Day-by-day summaries of the 2011 Australian Open (2nd nomination)

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

Not encyclopedic as it is not indepth and worth while. It is also list cruft as it serves no purpose and doesn't add anything to the project and Wikipedia is not the news 400 not out (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was already discussed recently and I see no reason to do it again. Consensus here was to merge the entire thing into the 2011 Australian Open page. Essentially to keep it. But no one talked to the editors at the 2011 Australian open page first and they wanted a separate page. So it remains because of a very recent decision. The editor who plopped the afd template on the page today is jumping the gun because he is in an edit war on several pages and wanted to take it to another level. That's never a good reason to nominate. I never thought the day by days were great pages but on occasion I use them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now that I look at it this AfD was brought about by a sockpuppet and banned user. User:400_not_out. Can an administrator look and perhaps delete this AfD and remove the banner from the title page? I don't want to overstep my bounds on wiki protocol and remove the banner myself. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric and Brandon Billings[edit]

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

No reliable sources on which to base this article. IMDb is not reliable; the actors' own MySpace pages are not independent; and the Children of Salem link is dead. They played a supporting role on a soap opera for five years as young children; no evidence of real notability. Powers ^T 17:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the role they're "best known for" (per the article) hasn't received significant independent media coverage, they don't seem to pass WP:NACTOR. Days of Our Lives is notable, but that doesn't mean every actor who ever had a recurring role in it is also notable. ----Smeazel (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty obvious case of non-notability; no further roles beyond being living stand-ins for a soap child once upon a time and they both clearly want nothing to do with acting any further. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if the soap they were part of was notable, their article is little beyond one sentence. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schaefer Ambulance Service[edit]

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

I'm really not sure this demonstrates sufficient notability. The only source is the company's own site, and I can't find any suitable sources by searching - lots of self-published material and some business-directory type info, but that's about all. It is mentioned at Air ambulance as operating the first air ambulance in the USA, and that's probably a notable fact, but I can't see anything more to be said than what is already in that article. I may be missing something, and American editors might be able to demonstrate that it really is notable - any thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There appears to be sufficient mentions of the company in reliable news sources; should be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above, passes the notability guideline. Theking 17825 00:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceship (Tinchy Stryder song)[edit]

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

Unreferenced single article with little more than a track listing. Has problems with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NMUSIC. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 20:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. If this was confirmed as a single to be released in three weeks time, then there would be no point deleting it given the sadly slim chance of it not being a top ten hit in the UK and generating plenty of coverage, but I can't find anything reliable to confirm that it's going to be a single. The video has been circulating for about a month and there are various sites describing it back in April as the first single from Stryder's new album, but the lack of coverage since then makes this appear doubtful. If someone can find something recent confirming a release date I'd be inclined to keep it. --Michig (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC) ...changing to Keep. Now confirmed for release in less than 2 weeks and on the Radio 1 A-list - pointless deleting or redirecting it.--Michig (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: New work by unambiguously notable artists. Upcoming song release is not really in question, nor is the strong likelihood that the work will become a notable hit. Might as well leave the article in place rather than recreate it later. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be kept, the track has an official release date of june 12th and is on the A list at radio one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.6.17 (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now, might become notable in the future. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:57, 30 May 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 nomination withdrawn. Yes I !voted but there are no remaining arguments for deletion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Scariest Movie Moments[edit]

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

Most of this list has been deleted as a copyvio, so rather than 100 items it has just 10. There are no refs demonstrating its notability. Do we really need this? Also nominating the sister article with more of them Szzuk (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Credit to MQS and an IP editor for rescuing the article. Szzuk (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: 30 Even Scarier Movie Moments

~~Delete - "Scariest" sez who? Original reseach.~~ Carrite (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Vote stricken. I don't recognize the current version of the article. Either it has been majorly overhauled or I was sniffing glue earlier. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see below) per nom and Carrite - frankieMR (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix through regular editing. If it were simply an unsourced list compiled by a Wikipedia editor or relfective of any Wikipedia editor's personal opinion, then we might scream WP:NOR and toss it out... but OR does not apply, as it a sourcable article about a television miniseries and editing has begun to address it as such an article, and not just a list. Liking the miniseries or not, or liking the miniseries' topic being what the filmmaker's consider the 100 scariest moments or not, are not the considerations. The production company's editorial considerations in creating their documentary miniseries is NOT original research by any Wikipedia editor. As the miniseries is verifiable, contains many dozens of interviews of many dozens of notable individuals about the genre with which they have expertise, all we need do is find the series being the subject of critical commentary by independent secondary sources and in THAT we can find notability. An addressable issue.[64][65] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 google book links, but I checked and none of the links could be used as sources. I didn't check all the news items, but those I did check all seem to say the show was aired, which we know. It just doesn't look notable to me and there are currently no sources demonstrating verifiability. Szzuk (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a few more than more that "3" books viewable online,[66] and Wikipedia loves it when an editor leaves the comfort of a keyboard and visits a library for hardcopy resources not available online. And books can ALWAYS be used to WP:Verify facts presented in an article, or in showing a topic making it into the enduring record, be used in an article's expansion and sourcing.

To be noted, that when cutting the original by 90% to avoid copyvio, what was removed was information that could be rewritten contextually and sourced accordingly. While simple surgical removal is the quick approach, a more encyclopedic way to address that issue would have been to rewrite it as sourced text, with expansion of certain films spoken about in the miniseries and why they were so, as there is INDEED critical comentary about why some films were included in the documentary. Some of what was removed was Dorothy's line "Toto, I've got a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore" (polled by AFI as the most memorable line in cinema history) as being #86 in this documentary per Encyclopedia of American Cinema for Smartphones and Mobile Devices ISBN 1605011452, and that Jaws was number one on the list and that and the American Film Institute put that film at number 2 in their own list per Hollywood blockbusters: the anthropology of popular movies ISBN 1847884857, and that The Hitcher was spoken about as being on the list and why in an interview of Eric Red per Voices in the Dark: Interviews with Horror Movie Writers, Directors and Actors ISBN 078644634X, or how an interest in the horror genre might draw viewers who sppreciate such series as per The paranormal ISBN 0824210921, or how Danielle Nicolet's participatiom can be sourced per both Encyclopedia of African American actresses in film and television ISBN 0786437901 and Contemporary Theatre, Film and Televison: A Biographical Guide ISBN 0787690465. Or is it that you intended to write about sources demonstrating notability and wrote the word "verifiability" instead? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you've put a fair amount of effort into rescuing the article already. So I suspect you or somebody else will put a decent ref in the article at some point and it will close as keep. As a sequel the other show could merge/redirect I guess. Szzuk (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the list has been removed the article could stand if it meets notability (would the title require clarification that it is about a show with that name and no the actual "Top 100"?). I don't know if I'll have the time to look for sources this week, but the rationale for my previous !vote no longer applies, so I struck that and I am neutral for the moment. I agree with Szzuk that both shows could be merged, but if notability is clear for both there is no absolute reason why they couldn't stand separated - frankieMR (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also after re-reading the feedback provided by Moonriddengirl at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_100_Greatest_Singers_of_All_Time I understand that it is important whether this content is transformative and not just reprinting the list, but such tranformation (say, analysis of the list contents) could easily become OR - frankieMR (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost anything could become OR, so we watch for such. Since this is an article about a specific television mini-series and not a list article, simply copying the list did not improve the article or the project. However, our instead giving our readers sourced encyclopedic content they can verify off the project does improve us. In an aside, I was trying to use the wayback machine a bit earlier to track down some 2004 reviews, but at that time it was off-line. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A regular search turned out pretty well for the subject (not so well for the sequel, but not dry either) so notability is met. Hats off to the cleanup team - frankieMR (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is not a "list" of the 100 scariest movie moments but a miniseries titled "The 100 Scariest Movie Moments". Therefore the only issue is "notability" and OR doesn't come into play. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White (song)[edit]

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

Article with little more than a track listing (see WP:NMUSIC). I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 20:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White CD has only been released so there isn't much information now. But certainly there will be more to write about after the sale figures, the performances, important events etc. Kmwolm

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 05:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in the chart performance section it says the single is the band's fifteenth consecutive number one. Considering that much J-pop music is only released in one market i reckonn that its quite notable. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It reached number one on the charts, and the article appears well sourced. --DAJF (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AOR/Melodic Rock Bands[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/AOR/Melodic Rock Bands

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

List is too broad, and would be overly-large if complete. Makes more sense to make this a category for existing articles than as a list. Singularity42 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about this subgenre. "Melodic rock" redirects to Arena rock, but the term "melodic rock" is never used in that article. No sources are provided to establish that any of these artists are considered "AOR/Melodic Rock". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable non-genre. I don't support including this as a category, let alone an article or list, and combining "melodic" with "AOR" only tends to make this already impossibly subjective and non-notable distinction even fuzzier. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:43, 30 May 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.