< 4 November	6 November >

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Rihanna songs[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This seems to be an unreferenced and trivial list. If there is a place for (any of) this information at all, and it would need to be referenced properly, then it belongs as a minor footnote to an existing article, not an article of its own. DanielRigal (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, no valid deletion rationale presented, and the nom appears to be demanding cleanup or merger. We don't delete articles just because they are currently unreferenced. Judging from List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, a featured list, unreleased songs by major recording artists are not only viable topics, but of course verifiable from the fact that even unreleased songs are registered with professional rights organizations such as ASCAP. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Madonna songs. postdlf (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to disagree with my deletion rationale then fine but please do not deny that there is one. I see these articles as trivial (hence unencyclopaedic), indiscriminate and incomplete (hence useless) lists. I was not aware that we already had articles like the two you mention but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS seems to apply here. Besides both look deletable to me (although I am certainly not going to nominate them while this is pending). The AfD you mention looks like a bit of a farce, a point seemingly accepted by the person who put it out of its misery in their sardonic closing comment. My comment that certain unreleased tracks might be notable enough for mention as a footnote to a discography is certainly not a suggestion that a whole load of unreferenced trivia be merged anywhere. I have added the words "any of" to the nomination to make this clearer.

Our notability criteria are simple: Significant coverage in reliable sources. Do we have reliable sources discussing unreleased Rihanna songs in significant depth? A mere listing is enough for verifiability but not proof of notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, even giving your comments every benefit of the doubt (to which you have only now added notability concerns), you have a merger candidate for List of Rihanna songs, which is not an AFD concern. And let me know how your AFD of the FL List of unreleased Britney Spears songs goes (one of "these articles" you consider "trivial"?); I'd like to see that. postdlf (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial" obviously implies a notability concern. I'll admit I could have worded the nomination better but notability was the key point from the outset.

I have no immediate plans to put any of those articles up for deletion although I see them as unencyclopaedic fancruft. How many such articles are there? If there are more than a handful then I am thinking that it would be better to seek a policy clarification on them than to approach them individually. If nothing else it would avoid the fans thinking it was a pop at their favourite artists. I am truly incredulous that we have allowed any such articles in a serious encyclopaedia.--DanielRigal (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unreleased songs. Even speaking as someone who thinks Spears is utter garbage and a blight upon music, gender politics, and culture generally, I think we're usually better off focusing our "seriousness" on the way in which we cover subjects instead of on deciding what subjects are "serious". One of the meanings of "encyclopedic" is "comprehensive", cultural history is serious, and 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not arguing against coverage of pop culture to an appropriate degree. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should not have discography articles for major artists and this has absolutely nothing to do with what I think of the artists themselves. I just feel that covering unreleased songs is a step to far on the road to List of pop stars favourite breakfast cereals. The only time I could see it being encyclopaedic would be in a situation where an artist has a significant body of unreleased songs which is a major source of interest and gets coverage in reliable sources. "Lost" recording sessions held up by contractual disputes could make the cut in some cases and the level of interest in Michael Jackson's unreleased material is undeniable. I don't think that there is anything comparable here. All artists record stuff that they eventually decide doesn't work or isn't suitable for release. It isn't really for us to be asking what stuff they are chucking out. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see anything in terms of coverage that would justify a list of unreleased songs for Rihanna. At this point, the article consists of an introduction that is a copy of the Rihanna article intro which is pointless with respect to this list article. The list itself does not establish notability. There are no sources. A quick perusal that I conducted did not indicate that the topic of unreleased songs from Rihanna is in any way notable. Note that I am not objecting to articles or lists of unreleased songs in general, simply that there isn't justification for one specifically with respect to Rihanna. That may change in the future as her career progresses. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete referencing / sources are not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stuart. WP:TNT. causa sui (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that there are not enough independent, reliable sources to support an article at this time. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Landzaat[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, he played minor roles such as cops, a helmsman and a handyman in TV movies/mini-series according to IMDB. He also was stunt double in yet another TV movie. And acting in commercials certainly isn't notable (unless it's a celebrity tie-in or the like). S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notable actor with notable roles backup by verifiable reliable third party sources. And two nominations on one day... Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a PROD is contested an AFD may follow per WP:CONTESTED:

"If anyone, including the article creator, removes a ((proposed deletion)) tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, and tags removed by banned users may be restored. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use the ((prod)) tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects. For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. That is what WP:FAILN tells me. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And when someone objects WP:CONTESTED applies and an AFD may follow (precisely to let others weigh into the discussion so it doesn't become a tit-for-tat between two people). S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 00:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NACTOR requires more notability than the subject of this article has. I note that the article references an appearance in Jesse Stone: Innocents Lost, but the subject is not credited in the article or other official sources. Clearly, the role was not a major one. Colonel Tom 00:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry, correct a type in your textInnocents Lost was indeed a difficult one. I was doubting if I should add that. The source for that was a real difficult one: my (distant) cousin Mitchell Landzaat himself. That is also why I took care of proper sourcing, to avoid of a conflict of interest. For his role in "Shattered City" I like to point at the article Halifax Explosion, to be able to make a better judgement of his role as helmsman. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure you are aware of WP:COI. I have fallen into that trap myself on Dutch wiki. BTW I can't find any notable sources when I search for +"Mitchell Landzaat" +"Shattered City" on Google. IMDB and other user created sites generally don't count (see WP:ELPEREN). If you can find something like an article about him or one of his parts in a major film magazine or a well-known film site that could change the outcome of the debate considerable. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 00:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am, don't be afraid. But I was not aware that IMDB was not acceptable as source. And I think it will be news to a few thousand other editors... Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Especially Dutch editors who are not accustomed to the requirements stated in WP:VER on the English Wikipedia. IMDB can be used as an external link but in most cases can't be used to prove notability. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I will normally use IMDB for an overview of the roles an actor played, not for the biography. For the overview the IMDB looks reliable to me. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources, and the body of work itself is not indicative of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NACTOR and lack of indepth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Juliancolton (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Eugene (2011)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Poorly written, already has a decent season section, contains OR. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It wasn't very notable as well as the fact that the article is very poorly written. Curtis23 talk to me 23:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In addition, the articles fails MoS standards, having the references formatted like external links. Further more, the meteorological history is very short for a storm like this, and is shorter than the lead, then it probably would be like a 4 times larger than the lead. Finally, the impact from the precursor tropical wave is not mentioned on either reference.--12george1 (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It wasn't very notable to begin with, and it didn't need an article in the first place. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no land impacts, poorly written, non-WPTC standard-compliant, etc. HurricaneFan 25 00:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nakielec[edit]

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

No indication of noteability through third party sources. Article created and edited entirely by bots. Jtrainor (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It shows up on a census, which is usually enough to satisfy WP:NGEO. I'll try to find other sources as well. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Changed vote to neutral. Other than the census on the wiki page I'm having some trouble finding anything that doesn't direct back to the wiki article.Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79
Keep per our usual practice with verified villages. Here's another source confirming existence. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it exists, which is enough for a village. --Kotniski (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. If you're going to delete this one then the whole productive effort of Kotbot should go up for deletion. And that's not going to happen. Volunteer Marek 20:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to let the air out of your tires, but WP:NGEO is an essay and not a policy. "Because it exists" isn't a criteria anywhere within the noteability policy. Jtrainor (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it does reflect our actual practice, which is what counts, rather than the bureaucratic designation as a essay rather than a policy or guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tiny Polish village but notable enough according to our standards. - Darwinek (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it exists=> its kept and frankly being created by bot is not a deletion criterion; bots get approved for reasons, presumably deleting what they do simply because they did it, is not that reason. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conqueror's Quest[edit]

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

Not notable, no sources found, horribly outdated, fails every sort of notability. Prod declined because I didn't catch previous prod after 8 days; derp. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, no sources found. Reads like a fan description. Jarkeld (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to improve the article a bit, but most of the text is useless, and shows no notability- the fact that the game's site is run on what is apparently someone's home computer is not a good sign. OSborn^arf_contribs. 00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Go ahead and delete it, the game itself isn't being played by any active community and in fact has been "stuck" at one time period for a while now. Also you can see the main admin's opinion on the article when I started it way back when here.

... Alvin6226 ^talk 02:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpenDDR[edit]

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

Not notable and created by someone with a conflict of interest (named "User:Openddr" who was subsequently blocked). I originally tagged as a G11, but this was contested by "Wikiman972"(2 edits). Software has been available 36 hours but has been downloaded less than 100 times. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VictorianMutant, if you don't agree with some text in Openddr why don't you propose a change instead of deleting the article? The reason why there are only 100 downloads is, I guess, because the project has been launched 2 days ago. It has been presented in a very interesting speech at mobile2days in Sofia at 4th of november. Do you think you can close this AfD if a reference to the launch and to the young life of the project is added?Johnwhite99 (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnwhite99, you might wish to read WP:DELETE to better understand the process, and the general notability guidelines to better understand the purpose of Wikipedia - a new project clearly cannot meet notability requirements for an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not simply a directory of products (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New product that has received practically no coverage. Simply not notable. Taking into account the possible COI the only option would be to delete. Яehevkor ✉ 16:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, not notable. ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete. I attended the event Mobile2Days in Sofia where Werner Keil, a veteran of the Java developer community, was presenting OpenDDR and it seemed to me a fair interesting open source project (LGPL, no commercial licensing is available). Maybe adding a reference to the agenda of the event would be enough to have a reliable source and to avoid deletion? Vladimirjjd (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any of that would help the article pass the general notability guidline. Simply existing and being interesting is not a criteria for notability or for the article to be kept. Яehevkor ✉ 16:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the product has not received enough coverage for it to be notable. DinosaurDan (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANAT Technology[edit]

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

Aritcle is just a thinly disguised advertisement and has a big COI problem. Eeekster (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an advertisement. There are no products, just the technology, which has been presented in many conferences for advancing robotics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant COI and scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The technology is notable, and is taught to university students in Quebec. See the bottom as well for all the major conferences this technology has been presented in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a technology, this is not a product. This technology is known worldwide. This is not advertisement, this is a technology, and is here for informational purposes. This technology has generated products. They are all available at the page [Robotics Design]. This article does talk about products, though their existence is mentioned to show the use of the technology. Other parties, namely university students, have created products from ANAT technology, and existing ones provided inspiration for their creative endeavors.

You hypocritically claim (the both of you) that I have no right to place images here, because I [sic] "obviously" have no connection to them, and then propose the page for deletion, for a [sic] "serious COI".

Make up your mind, but as for FACT, this technology is EXTREMELY notable, and has been referenced in many magazines, which i do not places here other than one, for their mention of products. I wrote the page [Robotics Design] and ask you to please delete it for a COI if this page can be deleted under the same frivolous claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it is notable enough for an article to be created here, then it will eventually be created by someone who is less of an interested party than User:Canadiansteve... VictorianMutant^(Talk) 22:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And Delete Robotics Design per Canadiansteve. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 22:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a separate discussion, to be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robotics Design. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, mutant, because unlike you, the university students that use it work. The governments it has been presented to will have no need for wikipedia. The last two commentators have no experience of any kind in robotics or anything related, and are unsuitable for determining its notability. The Article was placed here, after students asked us to last time, and now have begged, so we do again. I have no intention of calling one of them, and telling them to post what I write on this page. If you want to learn more about ANAT technology, attend some of the major events it is presented it, or visit the links on the page, then go to Robotics Design and visit the links on that page. I could care less if there was no wikipedia, but others like to use this page for informative purposes, and there is no one more qualified to speak about this than me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 22:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Steve... I do work. I am a middle manager for a large company which does have an article here on Wikipedia. I wouldn't even think of editing that page without full disclosure. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 22:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well mutant, I would expect the same from middle management. I have no idea what you mean by full disclosure in that context, however everything I write here is screened before writing it, so I assure you there is more than one hand in the pot when these posts are made, and there is most certainly more that one interested party to have this information here, mostly for quoting, when students use low bandwidth computers and need to obtain information quickly. When I make an edit, it assumes "full disclosure", and what I write is studied in universities. Only wikipedia has seemed to have problems with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a neutral point of view. It is here to provide information to the public. Many students worked on this technology. It was a finalist in two categories in ADRIQ (http://www.adriq.com/Activit%C3%A9s/PrixINNOVATIONCrit%C3%A8resetformulaires.aspx) and manning innovation awards http://www.roboticsdesign.qc.ca/media-center/news-and-events/ (visit this page, and you will find the certificate). You argument is that I deal with it. Show me where I was not being neutral and your argument holds water. Show me your examples of advertising, or the "barely concealed" cover to my alleged "advertising" and your argument holds water. If you have a problem with the page, I will change it. If you have a problem with me, I suppose I can't really argue that, other than that I am the most qualified person to speak on this subject. If the information was presented and it was wrong done by someone who knew nothing at all about the subject, and I corrected it would it be wrong and a "major COI"???

You have the ball gents, please tell me what you would like to see improved in this article and i will improve it. If you think this technology is not known, you are mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RHaworth. Regardless of how well known it is, it's a blatantly huge COI. Needs knobbling. BarkingFish 23:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

knob·ble [nob-uhl] verb (used with object), -bled, -bling.

1.to knob (excess stone). 2. Metallurgy. to treat (semirefined puddled iron) on a hearth before shingling to produce wrought iron.

I have said I will "knobble" anything you please to be knobbled. There is no "un-neutral" point of view expressed as per me. If you disagree, before voting, find out why you are voting. If you do not know, do not accuse. If you see this elusive advertising, present it. Saying the whole page is an advertisement, however is blatantly false. It is a technology, and it is being presented. Because it is used in products, it shows how much more notable it is. It does not show an advertisment, and you are mistaken if you believe this to be so. Show me how it is an advertisement, and you have a point, vote and make accusations, and you have a biased opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the onus is not on us to prove it's not worthy of an entry, that's down to you to prove that it is. And, fyi, knobble is also british slang meaning to damage, destroy, obliterate, remove, put out of action or otherwise excise in whatever manner you see fit - as in "Don't worry about your horse losing the race, I've knobbled the competition." BarkingFish 00:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional brochure. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I’ve proven that many times; It is used in students getting their masters degrees or PHDs; It was mentioned in major international conferences; It has articles published about it; The things that it has generated have articles written about them; It was nominated for nation-wide prizes; the products it has generated have earn nation-wide prizes. I could go on all day, but that would be to your benefit. You switch topics most gracefully; since I disproved your COI is grounds for deletion, you revert to saying that it is not notable. Starting on my talk page, then to two other user's pages, then to the article discussion, then to here, every time I destroy all your unfounded accusations, you switch the page, make circle reasoning, or switch the topic. I do not know if you have ever participated in a debate in anything other than Wikipedia, but I assure you, don't ever try. You are not good enough.

That being said, the technology is notable, I have proved it, but that wasn't the question. THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU is what is wrong with the article specifically. If it presents information that is in magazines and used for education, it is not advertising. Your claims of a secret advertisement contained in the recesses of this article are absurd, and I ask you to prove your absurdities. As to orange mike, it has to be a brochure in order to be a promotional brochure. And it has to promote something. Such would imply that it is not being presented; it is being encouraged through a point of view which is not neutral. It is up to you to prove why that is so, because my only way to prove otherwise is saying no, it most certainly isn't but that is not proof, because your comment is simply an insult, not a accusation with any basis in reality. In order to have a basis in reality, you must say how it is so. If you or any of the others here can show that this is in fact an advertisement, then you are engaging in debate. You are running a Volksgerichtshof with judges that vote after. Make a point. Don't make a fuss.Canadiansteve (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — CharlieEchoTango — 02:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — for above reasons stated --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 02:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "above reasons stated" are as follows: 1. a thinly disguised advertisement, 2. promotional brochure, 3. COI, 4. someone else would have done it, 5. scant evidence of notability.

1. What is digusing the imaginary advertisment? How is it an advertisment? This page simply seeks to present the technology, that is all. Should there be language that is not neutral, PLEASE remove it. I seek only fact, and puffery insinuates that the thing in question needs to be puffed to give it importance, which this article most certainly does not. 2. How is it promotional? And by brouchure, if you intend to say that it is meant to be distributed for the purpose of financial gain, you are deathly wrong.

pro·mo·tion·al/prəˈmōSHənl: Of or relating to the publicizing of a product, organization, or venture so as to increase sales or public awareness.

This page is to invite creativity. Many students, who found robotics Design through the wikipedia page, have gone on to make their own inventions with ANAT technology, which improves humanity. It is for educational purposes only. We report 0 clients on google analytics who discovered our website, our technology, or its use through wikipedia. I defend this page for the same reason I defend humans: I want to help humanity.

3. I completely agree, I have a major COI with the topic. But so would the students who wrote about in in acheiving their degrees and so would other companies we've worked with. If someone who had heard of this topic once came here and made a erroneous page about it, and I corrected his mistakes, would that be a COI, too. It is better that someone who knows everything about the company, the technology, and its products make the page, and then people who only know a detail or two add them on their own.

COI is no reason for deletion. It is a reason for improvment, and deletion is not improvement. I have asked others to improve the page last time it was nominated for deletion, and they did very little. No one needs to improve the article when it is abject fact, and I most certainly do not present any information with the pretense of any bias. If you find the bias, please tell me, and I will be shocked, and change it. COI as reason for deletion is like saying that a page for a newly formed country on a new Isle is a COI because only people that live there write about it. While external people may write that it is there eventually, they will probably know very little, and encyclopedic is sacrificed for notable. I had a student offer to take everything I wrote, and paste it himself with his own experience with it too, which is not particularily notable. I said that is absurd, and beat out everyone who wanted this page gone for their own interests. If anything I have assured that this page stayed neutral, as those that have dealt with this technology are FAR more biased towards it then I, and I did not want this to become a fairy tale, only a scientific presentation on technology. My COI is a COI, but of the greatest breed, I am dedicated to this technology unbiased presentation for the use it can have for humanity. I make no money from anything that has to do with this technology, I am a student who prefers to improve the community rather than play videos and watch games.

4. I've responded to this in the above answers. There have been others since who asked me if this technology is on wikipedia, because they were interested in putting it there to show family elsewhre studying in a related topic. I said yes. They did not do it. If you delete the article, yes, they will put it back. You will have all accomplished nothing. My name will not be there, and if this truly matters to your beaurocracy, then I will delete the page myself tommorow, and have a student put it back up in a second. I am however, the foremost authority to speak on the topic, so what would be the reasoning in having someone less familiar with it present it? Would you prefer Sociology be presented to you by Sigmond Freud, or by a gangster rapper? Yes, in many articles it is best to get "all the sides of the story". A technology with patents and products and major confrences and media mentions only has one side to fact. If i made assertions about the technology, those could be refuted. I only presented the technology as it is, however, which I assume is why the only accusation I see is that the whole page is an advertisment, insetad of a detail. Perhaps the inventor would be more credible than me. Perhaps those who use the technology would be less interested in the company than me. Perhaps everyone who has heard about this technology could add the details I have, piece by piece. But perhaps it is better that I do everything, and save everyone the time they would have spent reading the page. Either way, there is no reason for deletion more childish than saying "lets delete it and see if it comes back".

5. Your reason reads like an insult to all my sources. Did you find the manning innovation awards not notable? How about the Chambre de Commerce de Montreal, which hosts it in the Palais Des Congres, with events attends by world political leaders? The international Hannover fair, which many magazines and newpapers wrote about in german (and included many monetions of Robotics Design, and its technology and the products it is used in), Montreal F1rst, Connexcite, these things are not notable. If they are notable, then presenting ANAT technology in them makes it notable. Canadian magazines that talk about this technology, are they not notable? You can insult Canada and the things in it until you are blue in the face, but they are notable to us, as is the ANAT technology to Canada, so it doesn't make you anything other then a biased person. The technology is notable, and now that it has its own page, I can expand it to show all the diffrent creations. My images of the initial module, and three graphical pictures by the company were all deleted because it was claimed that I had no relation to the comapny by one person voting an end to this page for my COI. This was to soon expand to include many more creations which would incite the creativity of others. I showed no products, only basic functionalities of robots that can be accomplished with this technology. If nothing else, of which there is much, this technology is notable in iself, as any robot can be formed from it to do anything a robot can currently do and do things no other robot can do. You show scant evidence of being capable to determine notability in robotics, technology in general, innovation, idustry, or any of the types of products it has generated that will not get a desrption here, such as bomb disposal robots that carry twice what 2m tall robots carry that can drive under cars, or airplane seats. The scant evidence of notability is interantional acclaim, and although our mars-walker robot is currenly waiting for additional funding (though it is ready), you will have to do with people European and North American and Far Eastern mentions about it.

Please save this page for education.Canadiansteve (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all the above reasons and probably more. Not notable . no notable references etc. etc. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - blatant COI, and simply can't stand SPAs who refuse to recognize their precious gem is going to get flushed down the drain. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to take an episode of south park or the page for dictatorship off wikipedia, I will fight you there too just as hard.Canadiansteve (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The stylistic problem starts right off the bat; this bit of tech is described as an innovation. Advertising for a tech product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation: 2.A new method, idea, product, etc: "technological innovations". I suppose the definition of new was a little more obsure than I realized, and therefore this word should not at all be used, a very astute observation, thank you. However, a technology is not a product.Canadiansteve (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of references. Biscuittin (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak Keep should at most be a para in the parent article. Greglocock (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This technology has noting to to with a product or company, other then it has generated some and was invented by a person who owns a company. It is an architectural concept. A page for the concept of using H in structures, like the Roman aqueducts should exist, because they share "H"s share payloads evely between all attached ones and hold the structre stronger. Thats why the aquducts are still there. This is like that, but when you use it in a robot, its called an ANAT module, and instead of just sitting there, it can make robots with these "H"s like cells of the body that can allow it to do anything a human can physically, and also lets you design robots that instead of 8 DOF all the time have N; each module is a DOF (degree of freedom). Also two robots made of a bunch of anat cells can come together and make a diffrent one, like the cells of a bomb disposal robot and snake-arm shape-shifting mechanically and forming a diffrent robot, like a car-boat-plane. This is a concept. Only the company can make actual robots out of it, but im pretty sure if you made robots in a videogame out of the same modules, the patent doesn't go near there, so its still a concept for everybody, and its notable, because its been in magazines and got awards and stuff.Canadiansteve (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is some evidence of notability. However, the article is in serious need of improvement because it reads like an advertisement. DinosaurDan (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give examples of "advertising" so that I can remove them. Biscuittin (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see how the present version is promotional; I'm pretty insistent on deleting articles that are, and have been deleting them at a rapid rate at Speedy, but this sounds like a neutral description, not an advertisement. COI is not reason for deletion, if the final product is satisfactory. I consider the referencing barely sufficient, but still sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient independent third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this article for more than 7 days, and there do not seem to be any convincing arguments for deletion, so could we now make a decision to keep it? Biscuittin (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Self-reconfiguring modular robot#ANAT Robot (1997) - Not notable enough for it's own article. --Kvng (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kona 4C[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a row of chairs. Unverifiable by readers and does not demonstrate why this seating area is notable. Contested prod, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly non-notable. Colon el Tom 21:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable chairs. Give the chairs "the chair"! VictorianMutant^(Talk) 00:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely non notable seating. Safiel (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense and unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (whether deleting beforehand or not) to Tuanku Abdul Rahman Stadium as it's a valid search term. But it's clearly not notable for its own article. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a reasonable comment, but are the seats so notable in themselves that people would specifically search for them by name? Claret Ash 10:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think so, if it is a well-recognised section of a stadium that seats "Ultras". Of course, I fully agree they're not notable seats, only that they're likely to be well-known enough that people might punch them into our search bar. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the initial prodder, even though my view now seems redundant after this rain of Deletes. Claret Ash 10:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. There's no reason to have an article on Wikipedia about a row of chairs. DinosaurDan (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; no clear notability. I'm not sold on the idea of a redirect, but redirects are cheap; we can always argue about it at RFD after the fact. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy delete under WP:G11 as an entirely promotional article about a self-published non-notable book DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L.M. Meier[edit]

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

Biographical article about an academic. The only sources are a blog and other non-independent sources that do not appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources, therefore the article is not verifiable by readers and does not show how the subject is notable. The article clearly violates WP:BLP in its current state. Endorsed prod was deleted without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissed (ZOEgirl song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONG. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC) SummerPhD (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this is a retail/video single. While it may not seem notable in secular eyes, the song was definitively important for the Christian music industry. It seems, however, that few documentation exists regarding this song's success, probably because a) technology wasn't as popular as it is today for Christian crowds and b) Sparrow Records didn't bother to write down what happened with the Dismissed song, probably because they were disappointed by it. For example, Dismissed may have been a Top 20 hit, but Sparrow only cares about Top 5 songs. --LABcrabs (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC) — LABcrabs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - So what criterion under WP:NSONG do you feel this passes? I don't see one. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - That's a tough call, because i cannot find *anything* regarding CHR/AC airplay for this song, if it even aired there. All i can find is that this was a retail single (added --LABcrabs (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)), the music video was released as a single, the song was released for UK airplay, and that's about it. i didn't listen to ZOEgirl back then. So i don't know where to look or search anymore, expect offline. --LABcrabs (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)— LABcrabs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Update - It seems this song was released for a North America radio single, at least on Air 1. Here is a list of singles, just type "ZOEgirl" in the box. If you look at all the other songs, they were released as singles, so with this logic, so was Dismissed. i'll have to contact Air 1 for more information about this song, as well as other radio stations. --LABcrabs (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)— LABcrabs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I don't doubt it was released as a single. I don't doubt that it received some airplay. Neither of those are criteria under WP:NSONG. Most songs, like this one, are not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding SPA - my account User:True Tech Talk Time is generally devoted to telecom articles. Regarding Dismissed and its notability, i have "retail CD and DVD single" as an argument. It is as notable as their Limited Edition Single. Any "radio airplay" or "TV airplay" is a barely documented bonus. --LABcrabs (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, i logged on the wrong account and did not want to sockpoppet.)[reply]

Comment - Please review WP:NSONG being a single/video single/retail CD and DVD single/"Limited Edition Single" or receiving radio/TV airplay do not make this notable. Please cite the specific criteria at WP:NSONG you feel apply here. I see no evidence of any. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable," (yes) "and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources," (yes, see next line) "then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." (yes, assuming that direct-to-retail singles/EPs have the same level of notability as albums.) Also, "there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" about this song. First-party resources may include the interviews on the Real Life DVD and contacting Sparrow Records, while third-party resources include a Kingdom Bound interview describing this song, talking to Tony Micheals, and multiple third-party articles like those of Christianity Today. --LABcrabs (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the criteria for albums. This, "Dismissed (ZOEgirl song), The single Dismissed ...", is a song. "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts," ...no... "that have won significant awards or honors" ...no... "or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups" ...no... "are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." - SummerPhD (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it aired on Televisione Cristiana in Italia's countdown, and possibly more. Is a video single enough rationale to keep the article, given that ZOEgirl only has three music videos? --LABcrabs (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Again, please see the notability criteria for songs, explained at WP:NSONG. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NSONG. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Eisner[edit]

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

Not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I searched google and there were no references to him on the first page. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a Hall of Fame championship tennis coach at two universities. He led the Michigan Wolverines to 18 Big Ten Conference championships in 31 years as the head coach there. He has also been inducted to the University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor and the University of Toledo's Varsity "T" Hall of Fame -- the highest honors those institutions bestow on a coach or athlete. When you're talking about someone whose notability derives from the pre-Internet era, it's a flawed approach to simply do a google search and say "I searched google and there were no references to him on the first page." The article already has a number of sources establishing his notability (including a lengthy feature story about him published in Sports Illustrated here), and more can be found (though not as easy in the pre-Internet era). Cbl62 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Cbl62. "There were no references to him on the first page" is not a valid argument for deletion. Clearly a notable coach. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty weak nomination, to be honest. The first page of a google news archive search would have shown that Eisner passes the WP:GNG, e.g. with articles such as this. The SI article that Cbl points to also gets Eisner past the GNG by itself. The articles is also in pretty good shape and the sources in it prove notability, as well. Jenks24 (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very weak nomination. No references on the first page of a Google search is a non-argument. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: properly well-sourced and passes WP:GNG, why delete? 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definite keep. Plenty of sources and clearly notable. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsere Besten[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability criteria. Deb (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [1].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the majority of the editors who have commented on this page that sufficient notability has been evidenced. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly not a copyvio , as has been shown above, and equally clearly justified by notability. The supposed policy against such lists is entirely the invention of the nom. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was not transcluded in the log. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No copyvio problems. A discriminate list of notable people. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No copyright violation problems, meets all requirements for a Wikipedia list article. Dream Focus 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A properly documented list, derived from a German TV show, and interesting because it results in endless discussions about who is/was German nor not, which is fine by me. I know that being interesting, debate provoking, or even fun are not reasons for keeping an article, but this list is notable, and should be kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully meets requirements for WP:List, no CopyVios here. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RPRGM.--Cavarrone (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Ukrainians[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what's wrong with the article. Specifically with formatting which consist a hundred properly formatted links and several tables. Could you be more explicit with Wiki's contributors? Thank you. Stanislav (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Response WP:GNG states that we need significant coverage in third-party sources that show this topic is notable. Those need to be provided, rather than simply reproducing a list; there are thousands of lists out there by thousands of publications: why is this one important? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As was explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio. None at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) was already set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) the failed AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of two dozen AfDs by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [2].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree editor Stanislav, above. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just, as for the others.Not copyvio, as has been clearly explained above. There is no policy against these lists, and the assertion of the nom does not make policy DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was not transcluded in the log. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No copyvio problems. A functional list of notable people. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasons as the others, listed here and in the dozen or so other articles. No copyright violation, it fine. Dream Focus 18:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Non notable for an American, probably. But the English Wikipedia is not the American Wikipedia, it is the encyclopedia of the universal knowledge. The show and this vote is very notable in Ukraine; there was though a big controversy about it because apparently, on the first vote, Stepan Bandera, nationalist leader, was ranked first. There's hundreds of sources about this show and this ranking [3] [4]. This ranking is mentioned in several articles in Ukrainian Wikipedia, like the Ukrainian article of Stepan Bandera. And I'm not Ukrainian. DeansFA (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I agree there is not a copyright concern in merely reprinting the list, and other issues are fixable by regular editing; therefore consensus to keep. Courcelles 23:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Le plus grand Belge[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer in the AfD nom points to objected to nom's use of the close of that AfD as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [5].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with Blofield that it is useful. And believe that sufficient notability has been evidenced for purposes of a list of this sort. I note that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that the strong majority of comments on the 2 dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk are expressing keen disagreement with the parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full justified in terms of notability and clearly shown by the arguments above and in similr cases to not be a copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am quite interested in the copyright of lists discussion, unfortunately the link in question as the copyrighted source appears unavailable. If someone can replace it with an archived version I might have an opinion. If a source cannot be found, then there may be a problem complying with WP:V. Fæ (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds of doubtful copyright which may over-rule any other consideration. The copyright status of this list is not clear, as a ranked list based on judgement it may well be considered to have creative content. As the only archived version of the source website I can find, here, does not appear to confirm the copyright status, we should take a conservative view and consider this ranked list to have copyright per our legal advice summarized at WP:CIL. --Fæ (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm ... not a chance. It is the judgment of the thousands of people polled. The applicable copyright principles are discussed at the linked page--it is clearly not a copyright issue. That is not a "conservative" view -- it is an incorrect view. If it were true, wikipedia and in fact all media would never be able to reflect poll results. That's clearly not the case -- even laymen can see that. As in the List of Academy Award-winning films, and 1974 NME Critics End of Year Poll, and Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century, and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.). Without getting too technical, the key is: a) attribution; and b) format. As long as we have attribution (which we have here) and the format is not a mirror of the original format (which is covered by copyright -- we are also OK here), there is no copyright violation. Otherwise, we would be deleting all lists of Academy Award and Emmy winners and the like. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot see any copyright statement on the archived website, could you link to it? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody referred to any statement on the website; nor would any statement override applicable law. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the issue of the application of copyright to lists of this sort in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 111 S.Ct. 1282 (1991), in which it wrote (emphasis added): "A factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of facts, but the copyright is limited to the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves."[6] A screenshot of the list would, for example, be covered by copyright. But the mere listing of the fact of the names of the people chosen in the poll is not.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:CIL, a ranked list based on judgement is not similar enough to the case law you reference to be relevant. It remains unclear whether a poll with a large number of participants is a significantly different case in terms of creative content from a large number of people on a judging panel, this is a matter to be clarified with the WMF legal team. I suggest further discussion is at the CIL discussion page rather than in this AFD. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feist Publications and its progeny is the applicable US caselaw, and I see no ambiguity in the statement by the US Supreme Court that "In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves". And, I might point out, there is, of course, a large difference between the judgment of one individual and that of thousands in a poll -- the factual aggregation of the facts of the views of others. A pollster has zero "creative content" in the opinions of others; it is not the pollster's creation at all -- though the pollster may have rights in the presentation of the information, which is why a screenshot of the results as published by the pollster would, for example, be inappropriate. Finally, if Feist were not the law of the land, but the opposite were true, we would have to delete from wp every reflection of Academy Award winners, and Emmy Award winners, and Gallup Polls, etc. But not only that -- all of the media that does in fact reflect such results would be violating copyright laws -- clearly, there's no reason to think that is the case, as it is normal course for media to reflect all manner of poll and award results. That's simply, and clearly, not the case. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was not transcluded in the log. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article provides a useful means of listing biography articles, and per user:Epeefleche above, there's no copy-vio problem whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that AfD is a poor place to resolve a copyvio issue for which we have already received WMF legal advice. I'm afraid that the opinions of editors do not over-ride such advice and suggest this AfD closes so that we can follow the normal copyvio process. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest that this be closed a keep, as reflected above. If any editor wishes to discuss copyvio issues further, I suggest that they raise the issue at the copyvio noticeboard as to all such polls -- including every poll on wp such as the Category:Time (magazine) 100 Lists, every Gallup list such as the Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century, every Academy Award list, every sports list determined by poll, every poll of critics such as the 1974 NME Critics End of Year Poll, every Category:College football rankings (as they are determined by poll), and every election that is not subject to an exception from the copyright laws. These are just a smattering of the hundreds of poll results covered on wikipedia, and in normal course by media in general -- does anyone honestly think that both the media and wp are forbidden by US copyright law from reflecting the poll results of the Academy Awards? This is a complete non-issue. Even a sysop law professor, just 2 months ago, has indicated that there is "clearly" no copyvio issue lists of this sort. I would suggest that the discussion also include an explanation by the person starting it as to how they distinguish Feist, and why they believe the media covers all such poll results as a matter of course, with no apparent concern for copyright violations.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - (ec) Whether someone has won an academy award or not is quite different from a list showing judgement whether someone is the 19th or 21st most notable muslim of 2011. As suggested before, CIL discussion page is a better place for use to ask for a better interpretation from the WMF legal team on how we interpret their advice for polls, which may be commissioned and later published in a large variety of ways. --Fæ (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree. If anything, the balance is in the other direction. The Academy Award is a poll of a professional honorary organization, overseen by a Board of Governors. The opinions of memebers of an organization overseen by a Board of Governors would, one would think, be more likely to attract copyvio protection than would the opinions of respondents in a national poll. The same with a Time magazine poll. The same with an NME Critics Poll. The same with every football and other sports poll. And, as indicated, a Gallup Poll. I've quoted the relevant US Supreme Court case, and haven't seen any legal analysis --certainly none discussing US caselaw -- suggesting why its clear language is inapplicable. I haven't seen any explanation either as to why -- under the legal analysis of anyone who thinks there is a copyvio -- all of the aforementioned, some of which are opinions of organizations (rather than thousands of non-organization individuals) are distinguishable, or whether the person who thinks it is a copyvio thinks that all polls are copyvios ... in short, I haven't seen a US law-based analysis other than one that shows there to be no copyvio, and I haven't seen anything that distinguishes all of the above polls or explains why they are reflected as a matter of course by media.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response I'm not a legal scholar, I just figured that this type of article might be a copyright violation since it reproduces in its entirety the work of someone else which is presumably not in the public domain. I raised the issue at the prior AfD and some persons agreed, others didn't. I linked it so that everyone can read it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Understood. I am a lawyer with decades of experience who has dealt with copyright law in the course of my practice, including its application to lists of facts and the application of Feist. The law is as quoted above -- if there were a reproduction in format, there would be a copyvio, but the reflection of the facts is not a copyvio. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Except that these are neither facts nor statistics, the distinction is made at WP:CIL. Fæ (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        These are certainly facts. The fact is the aggregate view (note: not even the individual views of those polled), of those polled. The same as all the aforementioned polls are facts. How else do you explain the fact that vast swaths of media reflect all of the above polls? Who in the world do you think has a copyright interest? The pollster does not -- it is not their view, and they did not create the responses; only the format of their presentation. Those polled have nothing reflected that reflects their personal view even ... this doesn't even rise to the level of a film critic saying "this is my personal view". There is nothing to which copyright adheres -- if you think there is, please explain how the world reflects all the aforementioned polls.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I am expressing my understanding of the WMF attorney feedback, I have already invited you to collaborate on the relevant discussion. As for the interests of this particular pollster or whether they declare a copyright or not, the source website is not available and the archived versions appear incomplete so I am not certain anyone could answer your questions or verify your assumptions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I stand by the points made above, especially: 1) the specific discussion of the caselaw, 2) the opinion expressed by the law professor, and 3) the readily apparent reflection of aggregate poll results by all manner of top-flight media sources. As to whether the publication claimed copyright protection vis-a-vis the results of the poll, as I indicated there is no evidence that they did, nor would it override the law as reflected in Feist.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the others just like this. Not copyright violation, and it meets all requirements for a Wikipedia list article. Dream Focus 23:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no CopyVios, it passes WP:List. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that the coverage is insufficient to support an independent article on this subject. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poppykettle Festival[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. small local festival. 1 gnews hit from the local newspaper. [7]. australian search engine trove reveals just primary sources. [8]. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; unreferenced with no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - For what it's worth:

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/03/24/2387_news.html

http://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/ct/calendar/item/8cbb0e2dfa62014.aspx

http://www.cv.vic.gov.au/stories/the-alcoa-poppykettle-festival/

http://www.starnewsgroup.com.au/indy/geelong/248/story/141528.html

Local papers and government tourism websites. It's a borderline case, but I'm calling it a pass of GNG. A festival that's been going for 30 years is more than flash-in-the-pan. Probably little chance of expanding beyond stub status, but that's OK.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was not transcluded in the log. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Government tourism sites are not independent reliable sources. Nothing passed local interest coverage, not what I call significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Tombides[edit]

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage beyond WP:NTEMP and WP:ROUTINE. --Jimbo^[online] 17:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 17:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG with extensive, long-term, global media coverage - [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] Nfitz (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another youth team player who has never made a first team appearance and this fails WP:ATHLETE. Restore if/when he actually plays for a pro club. Number 5 7 21:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL,WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. DinosaurDan (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas failing WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2011–12 Hannover 96 season. Normal practice for duplicate articles is to redirect, if plausable, rather than delete. This is a plausable redirect, and so I'll do that. Courcelles 23:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Hannover 96 Season[edit]

Duplicate of 2011–12 Hannover 96 season article. Kingjeff (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely no point having two identical articles. Calistemon (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as a plausible typo. As stated above, there's no point to having to indentical articles on the same topic. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for duplicate. Ideally should be completed. Implausible typo. If this logic is extended we would have multiple articles for every other team season. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just delete it now admin.--Echetus Xe 10:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for a redirect by this name. Giant Snowman 13:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - redirects are harmless and easy. Nobody's suggesting creating redirects like this for every article, but once one exists, you can just redirect it without the rigmarole of an AFD. 109.154.73.118 (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The only redirects useful for the season articles (for both competition season articles and club season articles) are redirects concerning the dash for multiple years like this one has and if the club is known by more than 1 name like FC Bayern Munich (which also could go by as Bayern Munich, FC Bayern München or Bayern München). Redirects in general should be useful and user-friendly. This name was just a terrible error. Kingjeff (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Kingjeff is correct, a redirect has no value. Whether the s in Season is captialised or not makes no difference when doing a search, it will find either article. Calistemon (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My point was more that this entire AFD is a waste of everybody's time. It could have been redirected by now, without bothering anybody. 109.154.73.118 (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My point and Calistemon's point is that creating this page was just a waste of time and that this article shouldn't have been created to begin with and that nobody would ever use this redirect because by the time this name is written, the other article would have already showen up in the search. Kingjeff (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless duplicate. --Jimbo^[online] 12:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Jaellee (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There is absolutely no plausible argument for not redirecting this title; quite honestly, I almost did so per WP:BOLD and closed this AFD as moot. Redirects are cheap, cost us nothing, and will greatly assist someone who accidentally uses the wrong s when linking to the article. If the concern is server time and storage space, no worries - this AFD has already cost more than any redirect, and it's just 2 days old. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per UEZZ. Deletion alone isn't really warranted. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee cowboy[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable drink. A Google search shows several sites that have the recipe but none of them appear to be reliable sources for cocktails. Here's the first one that shows up, the next, and finally this one. Yes, the recipe is mentioned but no history or any other information is given for it and these sites do not appear to be reliable sources for cocktails. SQGibbon (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm going to say that this fails WP:N for lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources". A Google Books search for "Tennessee cowboy" +cocktail turns up no relevant sources, and a Google News search turns up only a single passing mention. As the nom states, web hits seem to be predominantly recipes. Deor (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. The drink is non-notable. DinosaurDan (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent third party references. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotarian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted as differing names and concepts (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecotarianism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecotarian). No reliable sources provided. Searches find numerous blogs and such, but nothing reliable. SummerPhD (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that the talk page gives two, um, less than useful origins for this neologism: "My friend Jessica coined this term before the date/place listed in the article. She introduced the term at a food conference in England, and we have been using it ever since. There is a term paper with the word in it, but it was never published. So as a way to get the term "out there", we made a wikipedia page. So - i propose changing the origin section to reflect all of these developments (please see the new section for my content edits)." and "I have self defined by this term (and other synonyms) since at least summer 2005 after attending a particularly significant UN summit. I could probably find evidence of this, however I'm not sure that the specific origin is particularly relevant and have changed the article to reflect this ambiguity." Talk:Ecotarian#Origin - SummerPhD (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism. DinosaurDan (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and DinosaurDan. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Parsk[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only claim to notability is winning "Look at 2005" contest. Vincelord (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 17:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the worst[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Yeah, I’m aware that the last deletion (three years ago) closed as snow keep. However, Wikipedia’s policies have changed in the intervening three years. The article clearly violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE; it is a purely subjective and not-exhaustive list (it doesn’t even contain all the films in some of its major sources). Most other similar superlative lists (best, greatest, worst) have been deleted; see no reason why this shouldn’t either. A previous argument made in the last deletion discussion was it should be kept because every film on this list has been deemed the worst by a critic; I refute that by saying that a) the listen doesn’t even contain all the films all the critics mention consider to be bad, and b) it’s subjective already in what critics you choose to listen to (probably just as subjective as what films you pick in the first place). This article is a time sink; a set of special rules had to be instituted just for this article to keep people from adding whatever they please. A further concern is that the article isn’t globalized. Though I concede that this article probably passes notability, I feel that that is more than outweighed by it being a violation what Wikipedia is not. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Clearly notable topic, which needs clean-up to give it a worldwide point of view. The idea of bad films has been heavily discussed by critics. The definition could be clearer, but the article as stands is not indiscriminate. I read it as "Films listed by one or more notable critic as being the worst ever", which will result in a large list (but not indiscriminate). Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not indiscriminate? Either you pick which films to have and have not, or you pick which critics to have or have not. Having critics doesn't make it not indiscriminate; it just passes the discrimination on to a different type of thing. And if you listed every single film in the world that a critic said was the worst; you'd have a very, very (ungainly) long list Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- are seven attempts to delete this page really not enough? As mentioned, the page has generally been treated as the list of worst movies ever made according to notable critics, and regularly trimmed to keep it under control. This kind of nonsense deletionism is the reason why I no longer bother editing much anymore. Mark Grant (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense deletionism? This article is an discrimate list, and has other problems beyond that. And what makes a critic notable? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Echo what Mark Grant says above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if it misses "The Horror of Party Beach" [14]. Collect (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On condition that the criteria is tightened slightly. At the moment we have a clearly notable topic that is perilously close to becoming an indiscriminate list. It might better to see if we can propose some hard criteria on the article talk page. Under the current criteria I would advocate deleting the article, but I think the problem can be fixed. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable topic. The article title may be somewhat nebulous, but it is realistic to define criteria based on consensus. In addition, policy has not changed. WP:INDISCRIMINATE's main passage has been the same forever. To address the other issues, the article can (and apparently does) follow WP:PEACOCK in proper attribution. As for too much criteria for inclusion, that is not an argument for deletion. There are many so-called "natural" topics out there that have to be covered in a specific way; we don't delete them because it's too hard. Lastly, the article not being globalized sounds like a reason for cleanup, not a reason for deletion. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Perhaps the criteria for inclusion should be several notable critics considering it the worst? Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you get into the gray area about what's a notable critic... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has an article or is likely to have an article, works for a respected medium (be it print or audio-visual; i.e. no celebrity bloggers, or Comic Book Guy wannabes). Not that hard, really. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears, after 8 discussions on this, that people consider this article an ideal topic. Even if Bucky Larson isn't on the list. RAP (talk) 19:41 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What do 8 nominations have to do with it? The last one was in 2008 Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in accord with above sentiments that problems with the page can be fixed, and that there is nothing inherently wrong or unmanageable about the topic itself. I think a general consensus has been reached by the community over the years to hold onto potentially subjective "List of X" articles as with List of songs deemed the worst(5 failed AfDs), List of video games notable for negative reception(6 AfDs), etc. While AfD's can potentially change, most AfDs dealing with these types of articles end up seeming more like pulling the arm of a slot machine than reflecting a realistic chance at successfully deleting the article. This article should improve over time, so I don't think there's need to worry.AerobicFox (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm surprised that the "worst songs" page has survived. For one, it's very short. For another, it's a different medium from movies, different advertising, different critiques. And extremely subjective. The fact that a song such as "Build Me Up Buttercup" grates on my ears doesn't keep it from being considered a hit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep especially for the reasons articulated above by Mark Grant, Eric, and Aerobic Fox. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the numerous sound arguments made above. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list as it currently stands is quite short and manageable, and is noteworthy. Additionally, I can't believe that Boxing Helena isn't on the list - this is clear evidence that the list isn't indiscriminate. ;) Colon el Tom 00:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the arguments above. The films should be listed as such by major film critics. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The efforts that have been made to limit the content of this list and to avoid individual user POV should be commended. As much as the question of the "best ever" film has been posed a sufficient number of times to render it a suitably encyclopaedic topic (incidentally, how is it that List of films considered the best has received only three AfD nominations compared to this article's eight?), so the question of the "worst ever" seems to be just as valid. An article as well-sourced as this one would be a significant loss to the project if it were deleted. Super Mario Man 19:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the comments already made. This topic has as much coverage among critics and scholars as any best of list does. MarnetteD | Talk 20:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep This is a clearly notable topic and many reliable sources produce similar lists. In fact, some lists are so notable (such as Empireonline.com's list[15]), that even the lists themselves become topics of coverage by other reliable sources.[16] Given 14 editors so far have argued in favor of keep (and I'm number 15) and no one has agreed with the nom, I think this should be closed as a snow keep. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable topic, and there's tons of reliable sources. DinosaurDan (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Would be happy to userfy if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Denisenkov[edit]

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

There is a complete lack of 3rd party independent sources to give this artist a degree of notability in an encyclopaedia. Disputed PROD so bringing here instead. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notability guidelines for artists (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Saatchi Gallery, London, UK is 100% such resource not mentioning others in External links section.

Proposed deletion And also: Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. It also has Old prod full tag for further editors

Please share your opinion on the matter pref. if you are artist or have special subject training.

Lavd^{Let's dialogue} 17:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I previously proposed this for deletion on grounds of "Biographical article lacking independent 3rd party references to demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guidelines for artists." The Prod was removed by the article creator, but I see no substantive improvement to the article in terms of independent non-user-created-content sources to demonstrate that the subject meets the criteria, nor have I located such sources elsewhere myself. AllyD (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has enough BLP sources (Objecting)

Please demonstrate the process of user-created-content at Saatchi Gallery, Art For Progress or at The Brooklyn Waterfront Artists Coalition Also information on Elisabeth (Academic) Gallery is historical article.

Please don't make undo if article is edited and contributed with ref resources. Lavd^{Let's dialogue} 17:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

www.nikitart.com as official artist site is enough reliable source of citations for verifications. Lavd^{Let's dialogue} 17:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brooklyn Waterfront Artists Coalition: See the "Join Us" section on the page; Saatchi Online: see the FAQ page; Art for Progress: see the Artist Membership page. There is nothing wrong with any of this; it provides artists with opportunities to get their work out there, but it is not independent 3rd party reference. AllyD (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well. This are notable artists you mention who can use that opportunity. Try to post your photos :). Or just try to register there or at Art Review. Its truly not the way it seems to you. Art Review is a well know magazine. I still believe there is enough 3-rd party notability sources, not the content itself, as it is quite common, but the placement of a content and approve of it by the top art gallery boards. No one will get you ability to post your data on such resources. And also this data is not new. Data might be not so active, shouting and dynamic - but its the way things are in art field. Its not tweeter. People make art attend galleries and discuss things in real at such age and master level, instead of run around Internet.

If you believe some data is libelous or harmful delete this data. Its not a reason to delete an article. Lavd^{Let's dialogue} 18:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BWAC has no web data. Its a real permanent exhibition of an artist. Lavd^{Let's dialogue} 18:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we invite some art specialists to the discussion somehow? It might help. Lavd^{Let's dialogue} 18:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources indicating notability. The article's novice creator and primary contributor has subsequently gone on a disruptive editing spree that I have stopped with a short block. Rklawton (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage fails WP:GNG. Nothing else seems to support the subject satisfying WP:ARTIST. Novaseminary (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the content is lifted directly from nikitart.com. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on present showing. If there were some references complying with WP:RS, to show significance or notability, things might well be different. Note that I am not criticising the art - for me it is good and ought to be notable if it it currently isn't. But one doesn't need to be an art specialist to assess coverage. And it is coverage that wins the day on Wikipedia. A group might be brilliant, but if no-one has heard of them, they don't get an article. A writer of self-published books is unlikely to get an article, but if people read them they might find them good. Van Gogh probably wouldn't have had an article until he was dead and famous. This is an encyclopaedia - we record what is regarded as notable. Our rules and criteria might not be the best - but they are in force until something better is brought in. (Disclaimer: I am not an art expert, and haven't painted for some time, but I do have works hanging in a few private houses. Not notable, I'm afraid...) Peridon (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with immediately preceding comment that delete is appropriate per current showing, and the clear thinking that explains the reasoning. Did not unearth good WP:RS but my web access presently tenuous. Wonder if primary novice contributor could receive some hand holding re criteria, and if they are in position to offer up qualifying citations (could conceivably do so, if understanding what would qualify as notable, and if such sources exist in for example appropriate Russian language source(s))? FeatherPluma (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glacial World[edit]

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

Unremarkable book series. No secondary sources. No assertion of notability. Only 3/7 of the books in the series are actually written. Seems to be a fancruft page for an non-notable author who doesn't have his own article. – Richard BB 14:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard BB You are a non-Indian. Many Indian fans demanded for a Wikipedia. I say you that you will also become a fan of it when it will be published internationally. In nutshell - this page doesn't deserve deletion. - Vishesh Mohania — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMHunt (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not meet the notability criteria for books or the general notability criteria. --bonadea contributions talk 18:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably could have been CSDed. --EEMIV (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet criteria for inclusion, other considerations raised are irrelevant. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable book series by a non-notable author. DinosaurDan (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cherkashyn Anton[edit]

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

Nothing notable. Bulka UA (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-promotional CV. No evidence or claim of notability. --Elekhh (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for much the same reasons - I can't confirm that the subject is indeed notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm School of Economics Alumni Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Attempted to redirect to proper article but was reverted. TM 13:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable club or organisation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG and it's been here long enough without getting noticed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 04:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ORG. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of California, San Diego. Entirely logical redirect target, so redirect and protect is preferable to leaving a redlink here. Courcelles 23:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UCSD Alumni Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG despite prod being removed TM 13:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of significant coverage treating the subject in depth from reliable sources; this alumni association is just like thousands of others. A redirect in lieu of deletion with a two- or three-sentence blurb in University of California, San Diego, would be appropriate. Neutrality^talk 04:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. A redirect makes sense, so no objection there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ORG. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Entirely logical redirect target, so policy prefers a redirect and protect to a delete, so that's what we'll do rather than leave a redlink here. Courcelles 23:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Poly Pomona Alumni Association[edit]

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

Still fails WP:GNG. Prod tag was removed but no sources were added. TM 13:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of significant coverage treating the subject in depth from reliable sources; this alumni association is just like thousands of others. A redirect in lieu of deletion with a two- or three-sentence blurb in California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, would be appropriate. Neutrality^talk 04:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ORG. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus in any direction here, and merger discussion can be continued on the talk page. Speaking as an editor, I can't see any need to use the deletion tool here in any case, if consensus develops that this should not be its own article, a merger would be far more in line with deletion policy than a deletion. Courcelles 23:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech Alumni Association[edit]

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

Articles fails WP:GNG even after the sources were added. The sources are routine news stories which mention the alumni association, but do not go into depth. TM 13:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources added by Dravecky demonstrate sufficient notability for the organization. Would not necessarily oppose merging to a section of the main university article, but that wouldn't be a matter for AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article easily crosses verifiability and notability thresholds. Sources added barely scratch the surface of at least 90 years of sustained coverage in respected reliable sources. - Dravecky (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that? I couldn't access most of the articles you linked to and the ones I could were purely routine. If you can show that those articles you have are more than routine coverage, please do.--TM 12:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Globe offers routine coverage of the alumni associations of Georgia universities? - Dravecky (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you cite are self-published or trivial mentions, including Ramblin' Wrecks from Georgia Tech: A Centennial History of the Georgia Tech Alumni Association. If an a person publishes their own autobiography, that doesn't make them notable.--TM 12:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That book was already cited in the article before I ever laid eyes on it. I added only on-subject articles from reliable third-party sources where the organization or its activities were the primary focus of the article. - Dravecky (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Insufficient notability and content to justify separate article. Would be a good section in List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. --GrapedApe (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've taken some effort to elaborate on the organization's history and notability in the article, complete with in-line references to independent sources. It would be particularly helpful if I owned a copy of Ramblin' Wrecks from Georgia Tech: A Centennial History of the Georgia Tech Alumni Association; alas, I do not. To give you an idea of the impact that the organization has: without the association, the school would have trouble procuring funds to continue operating due to low levels of financial support from the Georgia Board of Regents and the Georgia General Assembly. This assistance was particularly important in the 1930s (Greater Georgia Tech Campaign) and the 1950s (Roll Call). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni or Georgia Institute of Technology (a paragraph or so, maybe a section, would suffice). An alumni association just like thousands of others. As TM says, coverage exists but there is not significant or detailed coverage in reliable, third-party independent sources. Neutrality^talk 04:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ORG. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump[edit]

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

Not notable. All references shown and few found outside are blogs and other unreliable type sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Turtledove is a well-known writer in his field, most of his works have Wikipedia page. In general,Fantasy books have Wikipedia pages even when they are by less well-known writers. This particular work,as depicting a reality where magic works as the equivalent of modern technology is of particular interest to people interested in this field.Andreas Kaganov (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your perspective, but that doesn't exempt it from WP:Notability_(books). We don't make exceptions because you, or I, or several people, believe that the author is notable even if the book isn't. We hold all books to the same criteria, regardless of author or publisher. In an era of hundreds of thousands of self-published books of dubious quality, content and credibility, this is even more important. What is also troubling (but not related to AFD in particular) is the linking to the full text of the book, which shows a clear copyright with all rights reserved, without any copyright exception or licensing information, on a website that likely fails wp:rs and hasn't updated their own copyright claim since 2007. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That website is Baen's Webscriptions. Baen is the publisher and they make quite a few of their works available for free. In this case, they are offering only an excerpt. The article's external link is misleading, but there are no copyright issues with it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[17] is the whole book online, it isn't an excerpt. (same link, just click on 'contents'). Not really an issue for AFD, but still worrisome since it shows the copyright for the original [18], show that it was actually distributed by Simon & Schuster, and has the notice Copyright© 1993 by Harry Turtledove All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form. then prints the whole thing. It may be perfectly legitimate, but there is no indication that it is printed with permission or licensed in any way. Again, not an AFD issue per se, and notability still isn't established clearly in this case, but at the very least, it looks odd. What we need to really focus on here is whether or not the book meets the inclusion criteria for books, which I still maintain that it clearly does not. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not the whole book; it is just the first four chapters. While the contents page lists more than 4 chapters, if you click on them you will find that only the first 4 are actually displayed. However, even if it was the whole book, it still wouldn't be an issue. While Simon & Schuster may have been the distributor, that is irrelevant as Baen was the publisher (distributors and publishers are entirely different things) and Baen is a very reputable publisher. There is nothing at all odd about a publisher offering an excerpt of a book they are selling. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick glance through the "scholar" link above shows multiple independent, non-trivial sources. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, I happened upon this discussion and I just don't understand what is going on here and why this is being discussed at all. This is not a "self-published book", it is not by some unknown writer. Anyone interested in this field knows that Harry Turtledove is one of the most well-known writers active in it. I feel that to say this book is "not notable" is just ridiculous. Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. On the first page, you have More Giants of the Genre By Michael McCarty, the book is mentioned in a list of every book by the same author. No other mention. In http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/professional-development/childlit/books/KUNZEL.pdf "It can be a mystery like Harry Turtledove’s The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump or a hardboiled detective story like Jonathan Lethem’s Gun, with Occasional Music". The rest of the citations, are all by H Turtledove, the author of this article. So you have two mentions in passing, none of them significant. The rest of the "cites" on the later search pages are just mentions in lists of books, not actually covering the content. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ISFDB page linked in the article lists reviews in several major genre publications, sufficient to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Return Of The Ghostbusters[edit]

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Fan Ghostbusters film; does not appear to meet criteria for inclusion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I put a notability tag on the page months ago, and no one has shown that it has received significant coveraged in reliable sources since. I've done a quick google search and nothing comes up. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than a few non-notable blogs, this hasn't gotten any sort of significant coverage. Heck, there aren't even any professional reviews out there. On a secondary note, someone also added this to the Ghostbusters Franchise page, so if this is deleted we'll have to ensure it's removed from there as well. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Comment: Other than a few fan pages there aren't any sources wikipedia would consider reliable. (If any of the fans or people from the film are reading this, try getting a notable site like AV Club to review it- it would go a long way towards the start of establishing notability.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Additional: Cleanup from this might take a while since it seems that someone has been adding the fandom characters into various pages. Even if the page itself remains, a fan created character doesn't belong on the actual character pages of the canon characters. There's an IP address [19] that added quite a few bits to various pages. Also, if this is considered to be non-notable, we should probably remove the references to this movie (and its short film prequel) from the Ghostbusters (disambiguation) page. I removed the reference to the fan created character but I refrained from removing it from the disambiguation page just in case this does manage to have notability proven. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete no apparent notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria, Hapsbourg (1965- )[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable descendant of the Habsburgs. Article lacks independent coverage of her. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced this person is a descendant of any royalty at all. Neither of the two sources cited mentions her, and Wikipedia doesn't have articles about any of her parents or grandparents as one might expect for a royal descendant. In fact, nothing in this article directly connects the subject genealogically to any known royalty. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like some kind of joke to me. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the codes, but she is a descendent of the Hapsbourgs, the French line. I know her and they prefer privacy. Please leave the article alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmverardi (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OWN and WP:V. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears to have been moved to Maria, Hapsbourg (1965- ) and had the AfD notice removed. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've restored the AfD notice a second time (it had also been removed once before). Hopefully this article will be deleted today and we will be able to forget about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced, since none of the references mention the topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off the Record (Tinchy Stryder song)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: No indication of passing WP:NSONG. Not yet released. Eeekster (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close as a complete waste of time. It's released tomorrow, and will almost certainly be a hit in next weekend's chart. If there's nothing to justify an article in 10 days time bring it back here.--Michig (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's been released... Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By default since no one has articulated a clear argument for deletion. The mere citation of a guideline, with the implication--not even a statement--that the article fails to conform to it, is rarely persuasive and in this case has been effectively refuted. This close is without prejudice to a subsequent nomination with a detailed rationale or any merger discussions. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Universe subterranean races[edit]

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

WP:NFICT ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is currently a valid merger proposal on the page with active participants, which should be allowed to be played out BEFORE deletion is considered. Deletion reviews should only be considered as a last option. Mathewignash (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid deletion rationale has been articulated, list appears to consist primarily of bluelinks to (presumably notable) topics--and if those articles were later determined to be non-notable, then the list should continue to exist as a merge target for them. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Migration Network[edit]

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

Promotional, unsourced, and not notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that the nomination is ill-considered. Firstly to argue that because it is a factual description it is promotional would be to criticise most articles in Wikipedia, including many classed as good. It is no more promotional than most geographical articles for example. Secondly, there are sources given; I'm sure there could be more but perhaps the nominator could point to something that he believes incorrect? Unless he is actually challenging the underlying veracity of the article the mere fact that every statement is not individually supported by a source is not a ground for deletion. Lastly, there is a question of notability. But this is an inter-governmental agency. There are pages of references to the EMN on a Google search, on many different websites, many of which describe what it does as well as aspects of its work. There are books published by it and references in other publications. The claim must be that they do not count if they are in some way connected with the subject, ie from participant governments, academics working in the field, and so forth. But the same logic would rule out most academic topics. We do not exclude science articles because the only people discussing the subject are all academics working in the field, institutions they work for, and publications entirely funded by subscriptions from those sources. Wikipedia is not intended solely to be a list of things on the Discovery Channel and celebrity shows. --AJHingston (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NGO. But reliable references must be added! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too promotional and jargon-laden to be edited into an encyclopedic article without complete rewriting from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 02:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Friedman[edit]

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

Nothing notable. See WP:NOTABLE I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ (Changing to Delete, see below.) She is the mayor of a city of almost 200,000 people. Being mayor of a city of that size has been argued as adequate for a "keep" in many recent deletion discussions. (I have actually argued against that position, but consensus has been against me; see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Kaptain.). I have cleaned up the article and improved the references. I am saying "weak" keep because she is a city councilperson who was chosen as mayor by her city council colleagues, not elected as mayor by the public. In fact "mayor of Glendale" looks more like an honorary title rather than the head of the city government; see for example the city's table of organization which does not even mention a mayor! Also because the news citations I found were not about HER, they were mostly references to a mayor doing what mayors do. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." IMO, Glendale is a city of at least regional importance.--TM 00:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But is she actually the "mayor" in the usual sense? The "mayor" of Glendale is chosen from among the members of the city council and it sounds kind of honorary - in fact it appears to be rotated among the city council members on an annual basis. According to the city website, "Each year Council selects one member to serve as mayor. The Mayor presides at Council meetings and has ceremonial responsibilities, in addition to his or her other Council duties." I'm sorry, I'm changing my !vote to delete. This person is simply a glorified city council member, so the relevant criterion is WP:BIO which she does not meet. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:POLITICIAN. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage to support an article and no compelling reason to grant automatic notability to "honorary" mayors of this kind. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meeting WP:POLITICIAN, "Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Despite the fact that this person was nominated for mayor, the topic nevertheless conforms to WP:POLITICIAN. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since she was elected mayor of a city of over 190,000 people by the city council, she is clearly notable and the article must be kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind both of you that the guideline does not say "mayors of cities of at least regional importance are automatically notable", although that seems to be your argument. The guideline says "mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion," i.e., the criterion of significant independent coverage. They still do have to meet the criterion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [20] They quote and cover her just fine. A mayor of a city that large is notable, that how it was in the last dozen or so AFDs like this I've seen. Dream Focus 01:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles on mayors of notable cities, which is the kind of information one expects from almanacs, encyclopedias, etc. At worst, it would redirect to a list of mayors of her city. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see that there is indeed coverage of this individual, and there is the weight of past precedent to consider. The manner of her election as Mayor is interesting, but doesn't ultimately diminish the fact that she is indeed mayor of a city large enough for the mayor to matter, at least as far as our criteria are concerned. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You see coverage? I see a single apparently independent reference, by a news outlet with the city name in the title and whose major BLP point in the article appears to be that the subject is a woman. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Shipp (soldier)[edit]

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

This showed up a littel over two months ago and I tagged the article as afd on grounds that by milhist standards the article asserts no notability in regards to the individual in question. It was spared the axe, and I've let it live for two months to see if anything of worth would end up coming of it, but since I still see no notability established insofar as policy and guideline material are concerned I am formally nominating this biography article for deletion, but I will leave the matter of the article's notability to the community to discern. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been generally established before that if an individual has been held to be notable enough for a biography in the Dictionary of National Biography, the definitive biographical dictionary of notable British historical personages, selected and written by scholarly experts, then they are certainly notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to WP:MILPEOPLE, which is why the article is here, but I do appreciate the input. I have a question: is the DNB mentioned anywhere in the notability guidelines? If not it may be interesting to see a discussion start up concerning that as it relates to this. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that while WP:MILPEOPLE is a good guideline to who is notable, it is not necessarily a good guideline to who is not notable. And all guidelines are just that, guidelines (although in fact this essay doesn't even have official guideline status). Added to the fact that Shipp is better known for his writings than for his military achievements as a junior officer. I feel it is a little odd to question the notability of figures included in the DNB, which is far more proscriptive and less easy to get into than Wikipedia and leans far more towards persons significant to history than to those briefly (and often peripherally) significant in pop culture, as Wikipedia has a tendency to do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An entry in the DNB is normally, and in my view correctly, considered to be sufficient to establish notability. The selection process for the DNB was a lot more rigorous than for Wikipedia and although it is open to anyone to argue that the editors of that publication made a mistake the reasons for inclusion there are likely to satisfy WP:GNG. In this case, his fame was not so much for his military achievements per se but as author of a popular autobiography which went through three editions and retained a readership for most of the 19th century. That he may not be read today is irrelevant - WP works on the principle once notable, always notable. For anyone coming across a reference to his book WP is a good place to find out who he was. --AJHingston (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only DNB but various literary criticisms bring Shipp's memoirs to the level of notability. Percy Bysshe Shelley reviewed the memoirs in 1829 in the Edinburgh Literary Journal. The New Monthly Magazine reviewed the memoirs in 1829, too. A reprint was reviewed in 1890 in The Athenaeum. In 1992, Shipp was given as an example in the book Radicalism and reform in Britain, 1780–1850. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MILPEOPLE is a supplementary essay; it doesn't override GNG or BIO. If someone is notable by the latter standards, viz. having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (such as the DNB or the other sources Binksternet names...and really, the DNB is all we need), it doesn't matter if they don't meet the former. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DNB is usually considered sufficient for notability. It is only necessary to pass one notability criterion, not all of them. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Basically the reason for including everything in the DNB is that we include everything in other encyclopedias -- except for the ones so specialized that they don't really discriminate what's important. The DNB is a general national biographical encyclopedia, & that it covers something is sufficient reason.The same goes for the nation biographical encyclopedias for the US and Canada and Australia, etc. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Nabage[edit]

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

The importance of the subject is not shown.Who is this person?Why is he/she notable?A google search gives only facebook and linked in profiles;that too,many and various people.If this was to be kept,this should have asserted the importance of the subject. That's me! ^{Have doubt?} What I done? 06:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. (i already placed that, but no idea why was it later put on AfD.) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 06:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before the speedy,I was going to assign the AFD.But it took a long time because of a error in my broadband connection.So it came after this.That's me! ^{Have doubt?} What I done? 06:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But i think you should have directly go for speedy. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Na.Some admin warned me not to put speedy tags(because i made some mistake with 3-4 articles),so I chose to send it to AFD.That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 07:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then go for PROD first. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before I Weigh[edit]

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

just another single. no charting, awards, covers. lacks coverage, single review is trivial. nothing satisfying WP:NSONGS. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a "just another single" guideline on Wikipedia, as many bands have non-charting singles. What is important is the notoriety of the group, and in Australia they are well-known. Delapeople (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cellulite Soul. There is a guideline for "just another single". I don't see the coverage that would justify a separate article for the song. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cellulite Soul, the song's parent album, per WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Gongshow ^Talk 03:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Combat boot. Can be merged from history, but there is currently no sourced (and therefore mergeable) content. Sandstein 10:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical boot[edit]

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

Totally uncited, limited notability, limited difference from combat boots except by who wears them. TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Different enough to have a separate article. Much more lightweight than combat boots. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into combat boot which already covers a variety of types. Warden (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Warden. I was not able to find significant coverage needed for a separate article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Combat boot Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Combat boot. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Combat boot. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Combat boot. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, You Want to Be a Vampire?[edit]

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

A episode from a Comedy Central animated series (Ugly Americans). The production section is almost exclusively referenced to commentary provided on the DVD (i.e. a Primary Source). There is one reference to the Huffington Post, but it talks about Vampires in a general sense, relating it to the entire series not just this episode (although the episode is not mentioned by name it is hinted at). The reception section contains a reference to TV ratings for the night it was shown (one is also present for a previous episode). The final two references in this section make no mention of this episode either. I don't see how this can pass the WP:GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The primary source in this case is the episode itself, not commentaries « which cite, comment on » (definition of secondary source on the page you mention). DeansFA (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

using that logic the description of the show on the back of the DVD case would also be a secondary source. AIRcorn (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The episode or its theme are mentioned in every reference cited, except for two; one to confirm the DVD's release date and one for the previous episode's ratings. You have to understand that the show uses a "monster of the week" style, so when the staff refers to vampires, they are referring to this episode. I have added more secondary sources and expanded parts of the article. Cheers, Pancake (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to List of Ugly Americans episodes. This episode does not appear notable for itself.--Cavarrone (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really don't see any problem. — Status^talk_contribs 01:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the episode does not inherit notability from the series. It must be independently notable. You haven't advanced an argument for keeping the article because you didn't address the nominator's concerns. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why was this even nominated! ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 04:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a lack of secondary sources that mention this episode, therefore failing WP:GNG. Why do you think it should be kept? AIRcorn (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the nominator rationale? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i did. So will you ignore that big Production section? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Ugly Americans episodes The episode does not have notability independent of the series, and for articles about specific TV episodes, notability is not inherited. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and redirect to episode list) - there is no significant independent coverage of this episode in any of the sources, only generalities about the series, so this fails WP:GNG. None of the keeps address that issue. I agree the title should be redirected to the episode list. Hekerui (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect After reading through the above comments, I think the article should be redirected to List of Ugly Americans episodes. Lack of significant 'independent' coverage is the main issue here, I think. Novice7 (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to series page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Buckland[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE, and sources do not seem reliable. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this article on an award-winning voice artist who meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The nominator's concern toward sourcing is an issue best addressed through regular editing, as we do have multiple reliable sources which do address this person, directly and in detail,[21][22] and minimal WP:BEFORE easily confirms her as winning both the 2007 Anime Expo AND the 2007 Sakura-Con animated voice acting awards.[23] She has received awards notable to and by an industry, thus determining her to be worthy of note. Needing work encourages that such work be done, but does not always mandate deletion.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:02, 29 October 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) 00:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 03:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO#1 and also appears to pass WP:ENT#1.--Cavarrone (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits Live (Saigon Kick album)[edit]

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

Not a notable album per WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Album has been reviewed by Allmusic but has not received significant coverage and has not charted. Mattg82 (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. This is just an indiscriminate listing, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE (actually there are already far too many album articles on WP, why not just copy the entire Allmusic database ;-). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / redirect to band's artcile. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seem to be the consensus after two relistings DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Education Group[edit]

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

Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - Article meets WP:GNG, per:

Walker, David (October 19, 2010). "$3.6M in Debt, Photo School President Faces Fraud Charges." PDN Photo District News.
Fry, Chris (March 18, 2011). "Business School Was a Rip, 37 Students Say." Courthouse News Service.
Ianier, Brian (March 24, 2011). "Thirty-seven former students sue Harris School of Business in Linwood over accreditations." Pressofatlanticcity.com.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More sources needed to keep this article, but it is important for Wikipedia readers to learn about controversies about for-profit educational institutions.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found to prove it gets coverage. 32 results from Google news archive to sort through for more. Dream Focus 15:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has clearly received coverage, but a handful of references in no way implies "significant coverage" which is what is actually required by WP:GNG. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, more sources have been found and can be incorporated into the article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources available to meet WP:GNG. There is the additional factor that such umbrella groups are convenient repositories for information on their otherwise nn schools. TerriersFan (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turnhouse Golf Club[edit]

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

This article doesn't have a claim to notability. If it was new, it would arguably be a spam speedy delete candidate. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 14 October 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) 00:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'd rather this was cleaned up. It's possible this particular golf club is notable, but I can't tell because there aren't any reliable sources. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the paragraph on the course's history into the Turnhouse article. That said, there are a number of media references to the club, mainly from The Scotsman, which is effectively its local paper, and these may be enough to stretch to a Weak Keep. AllyD (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Passing WP:GNG:

(January 8, 2005.) "Golfers' range plans face being bunkered." The Scotsman.
(June 10, 2005.) "Turnhouse helping children to get in the swing of golf." The Scotsman.
(August 28, 2006.) "Golf club idea swings it with planners." The Scotsman.
(June 11, 2007.) "Golf's no longer a good walk spoiled - you can now stand still." The Scotsman.
(May 21, 2008.) "Girls are given their Turn in bid to find golfing stars of the future." The Scotsman.

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Or look at the links above me which someone has already found for those too lazy to look for yourselves. Dream Focus 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every sports facility gets coverage in the local newspaper. I don't think that demonstrates notability. To demonstrate notability would require significant news coverage from other geographic areas. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to Turnhouse. WP:ROUTINE coverage. At least three of the articles linked above are minor human interest stories (children's golfing events) or announcement-type event reporting - not coverage treating the subject in detail. Neutrality^talk 05:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many golf courses on Wikipedia, and more are just fine by me, as long as they are properly documented, which this one is, or could easily become. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG per Northamerica1000. CallawayRox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Inline citations provide good sources now. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. causa sui (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somenath Maity[edit]

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

Claims to be a famous artist. No google news results. http://www.google.com/search?q=Somnath+Maity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=Somnath+Maity&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=2pw&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=oYehTr3hNsWusAKJndWcBQ&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CAwQ_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=cf763e873c139099&biw=1280&bih=866 Gaijin42 (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 21 October 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, Davewild (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's nothing like a misspelled search term for failing to find GNews results. However, while several varied ones are found using the name given in the article title, I am not convinced that any of them are quite substantial enough for notability. But I think they do go far enough to make a further search by someone who is familiar with Indian sources worthwhile. PWilkinson (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 03:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - there seem to be many good references. Please remember not to bite the newbies.

The Hindu: Painting sculptures Aruna Chandaraju. July 21, 2010. "Somenath Maity interprets the urban sprawl of Kolkata in his many paintings and his untitled canvas offers a slice of that cityscape with elements like a gateway and cross-bar railings, in rich, layered colours." - feature article in one of India's leading national newspapers.

The Hindu: Forms and figures October 30, 2008.

India Today In the City. Bangalore. October 1, 2008. "a massive show featuring masters and big names like S.G. Vasudev, Somenath Maity, Basukinath Dasgupta and G Subramaniam"

Mid Day: Delhi Be cause. Navdeep Kaur Marwah. October 13, 2008. "Curated by Gautam Kar, this ongoing group show has on display works of several experienced artists like ... Somenath Maity and Thota Vaikuntham among others. "We have selected those artists for the show who have been in this field for over 15 years, as they bring with them the experience and the seriousness that we required," says Isha Singh, owner of Art Laureate."

Profile of Somenath Maity on SaffronArt "Recognized today as one of Bengal's important new emerging painters, Maity has already exhibited his works at many major Indian and European galleries. He has won awards and scholarships from most of the major Indian fine art institutions, including the All India Fine Arts and Crafts Society, the Birla Academy and the IAAI. With several one-man exhibitions in India and abroad to his credit, including shows in Germany Sweden and the United Kingdom, his paintings also enjoy pride of place in prestigious permanent collections like those of the National Gallery of Modern Art and the Lalit Kala Academy in New Delhi, the Fukuoka Museum in Japan and also in several corporate and private collections all over the world."

Art Alive Gallery: Investing in Art recommends "To start, one should invest in large works of younger artists or buy drawings or small works of established artists that suit small budgets. Here are some investment options for a new investor in art at different levels up to Rs. 2 lakhs: Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 50,000 - buy a work of Pooja Iranna, Mohan Malviya, Apurva Desai, Manish Modi, Mithu Sen Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 100,000 - buy Nupur Kundu, Somenath Maity, Partha Shaw, T.M. Aziz, Ravi Kumar Kashi, Sanjiv Sonpimpare"

Maity's paintings are for sale or exhibited on many sites, such as:

Studio3 India (painting)

Vikal P Artshop (paintings)

Dart.FineArt.com Gallery Kolkata (painting)

ArtSlant.com London (painting)

Aryan Art Gallery (painting)

Maity has a profile at Google Profile (photo of artist). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete the articles in the Hindu are not "feature" articles about him: they are about group shows, and he;s given one short paragraph in each article. That is not what we consider substantial coverage. The next two are also group coverage, not substantially about him. Saffronart is a dealer's site, and, like most, are not reliable sources. To the extent its reliable it says he's an emerging artist. Ditto for artalivegallery--but , to the extent its reliable, the quote is saying he is not yet a fully established artist, and says his works are selling in the $1000-$2000 range, which to me represents NOTYETNOTABLE. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, but remember that while the exchange rate may be around 50 Rupees to the Dollar, a Rupee buys you much more than 2 cents worth in India - there are a lot of people on "a dollar a day", or less. Being famous enough to earn 2000 days' pay by selling one painting ... is not to be sneezed at.

Also recall that India is a country of over a billion people, so being noticed is perhaps five times as hard as in, say, the USA. Getting onto a swathe of art galleries across that nation, and The Hindu national newspaper, is already quite something. Think of exhibiting in New York, Seattle, San Francisco... and getting mentions in The New York Times. It's notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 based on 1) Electoral results are generally appropriate for inclusion and 2) Splitting necessary due to size (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral results for the district of Burwood[edit]

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

extremely narrow, non encylopedic article, using only primary sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. These articles are hardly non-encyclopedic - they're an incredibly useful repository for these historical results. I'm also not aware of any policy that prohibits lists such as these using primary sources, since in this case it's obviously the most reliable way to go - an electoral commission is hardly the same as a primary source in a biography, for example. Nominating one article in isolation is also an odd move - there are literally hundreds of these articles. Frickeg (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We've been through this before here and here. Miracle Pen (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the exact same thought when I saw this :) Jenks24 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a bizarre nomination - of course it's encyclopedic for an article about an electoral district to include its past results, and to split them off into a separate article when it's a district that's been around for sixty years. It's also strange to critique it for using primary sources: what other source would you expect for election results but the electoral commission? Rebecca (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frickeg and Rebecca. Also, "non encylopedic" is a poor argument to make, see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. At the very worst it should be merged back to the Electoral district of Burwood article, but that would bloat that article (the reason these sub-articles were created in the first place...). See Wikipedia:Article size#Lists, tables and summaries. Jenks24 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, legitimate split-off article. Including all electoral results in that article would be a nightmare. As for the "extremely narrow" comment, part of Wikipedia's great strength is the ability for it to cover very narrow or obscure topics in great detail. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Legitimate sub-topic that would clutter the main article. This is, in essence, a form of a list. Carrite (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Safiel (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MarchFirst[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No References, not sure how this escaped the first AfD. I checked revs to see if they were removed but it appears that this article had miraculously escaped being challenged for being unsourced from beginning to now. Phearson (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the first discussion. There are 15 sources on the talk page which have apparently never been integrated into the article. Pburka (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Octavian kusuma putra[edit]

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

Promotional article for a musician of questionable notability. No reliable sources in the article, no sources for award claims. Google search on Octavian kusuma putra shows only 129 unique results - mostly social media, blogs, primary sources, and/or unreliable sources. Google news search on the same shows zero results. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC
Delete. Unknown musician, no source, non notable. *Annas* (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Patent nonsense & vanity article. Non-notable "musician". Keb25 (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My own search shows nothing, and the band itself does not seem notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no clear evidence of notability, fails WP:BLP for lack of references. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete independent third party references are not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Happy to userfy if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brakeman (programming tool)[edit]

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

Non-notable product. As of this nomination, the sources given don't fulfill WP:N: the product's website, one presentation that was given at a conference, and two cursory events. There are no actual articles that fulfill the notability criteria, and I've not been able to find any that do. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NORUSH View One. ...creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea. Couldn't find any independent, reliable sources. The sources provided are self-published. Pmresource (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Brakeman is currently only existing SCA tool that works on Ruby language and is mature, working tool. It was presented on a number of conferences, including OWASP, LA Ruby etc. It's a mature, free tool that is well recognized in Ruby programmers environment. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there are now two more independent references and total number of references is now six. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You added links to two blogs. Blogs aren't reliable sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are wrong. Wikipedia:Notability (web) does not prohibit blogs but merely trivial sources, and specifically personal blogs. None of these sites are personal blogs. First one (Fortify) is a corporate blog, respected in security industry. Second one is not a blog but a security news website. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia:Notability (web) does not apply to this AFD as the brakeman programming tool is not a web site. I'm assuming your are referring to this port, and this post as the two reliable sources. I will note that the first one is copyright Paweł Krawczyk and is in fact a blog. There is no indication of editorial oversight for this site that would indicate that would qualify it a reliable source for notability purposes. The fortify blog also lacks indication of editorial oversight for this site that would indicate that would qualify it a reliable source for notability purposes. - Whpq (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe userify. The sources are brief/weak/trivial. Doesn't establish notability. Could be worth keeping if better sources found. Could do with a re-write for a more general audience but that's an editing issue.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowgum Films[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unremarkable fanfilm company. Main project Troll Bridge appears to still not yet been released after eight years - Google news search on "snowgum films" "troll bridge" shows only 3 results, 2 of which are duplicates with only passing mentions. Standard search on the company name shows mainly primary sources, blogs, and social media. No significant coverage from reliable sources. While a couple of their films appear to have won awards, those are for the individual films, not the organization itself. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourcing currently in the article is insufficient to establish notability. I can find no significant coverage myself. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability, classic up and coming case, no reference and read like advertising somewhat. Ray-Rays 20:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. lacks reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J30 protests[edit]

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

with just a few hundred internet hits, including twitter, demotix and indymedia, clearly not a term in use by the big public. Maybe worth a redirect to another place, but on its own not noteworthy. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cant find evidence of the term used in reliable sources and it's an unlikely search term. As it stands, the article is basically a dicdef. Pburka (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure this even warrants a mention in the 2011 United Kingdom anti-austerity protests article. The only source I can find which might qualify as reliable is the indymedia one, and I have a strong suspicion this source is not actually independent. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speedily as possible. One sentence "article". Doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Own Planet[edit]

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

Non-notable record label ♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 16:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No third-party references establishing notability found. _noisy jinx ^huh? 19:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Three relists later, it's time to call this what it is, no consensus. Courcelles 00:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pau Masó[edit]

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

Film director and actor. Acting experience is one TV episode and five short films. Has directed three short films. Has an upcoming film, Haunted Poland, budget of $1,000, that is to debut at Sundance. However, Sundance hasn't released their schedule yet, so who knows. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. No reliable sources about him in the article or that I could find. Plenty of refs that mention him with Haunted Poland, but nothing about him. Fails WP:GNG Bgwhite (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for his significant roles in Haunted Poland. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:42, 14 October 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) 00:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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've gotten confirmation that the nominator is indeed the subject so since there are no keep !votes I'll allow the subject's reasonable request to push this to the delete side. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Fitzgerald[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion. The last there there were concerns that Mr Fitzgerald was a nobody and did not meet the criteria for having a wikipage. I am Gary Fitzgerald and i agree with that comment. Maybe when I was actively involved in politics there was an argument to keep that page up. But I have resigned from the Greens (December 2010) and am not just an ordianary citizen. My only invovlement in politics is to turn the radio down when the bs starts. It would seem clear to me that this page should be deleted.

Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garytfitzgerald (talk • contribs)

Note I have refactored this nomination and formatted it to include the proper AfD components, it was made a month ago and not listed, so I am also listing it now. I have not made any substantive changes to the nomination statement. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unusual case, to be sure. There might be a case for some measure of notability, perhaps - but I find that I'm swayed by the subject's quite reasonable request. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because of the self-nom (one's legacy and reputation remain even if one retires from public life) but because he fails WP:POLITICIAN and article is overly promotional. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:38, 4 November 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) 00:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. At first glance this seems like a slam dunk delete and I'm sympathetic to BLP subjects who wish that their article's be deleted. However, I would like to see some confirmation that User:Garytfitzgerald is in fact the subject as anybody can create an account claiming to be anybody and one of the delete !votes is primarily based on this. Also, this article has survived a previous AFD with a clean "keep" so a little more participation would be helpful in determining if consensus really has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: There is an OTRS ticket against this request OTRS:2011092310006619 Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 01:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Dandy Warhols. This has to be closed eventually. This is not my subject, but merge and edirect seems safe enough, for it can always be reverted and expanded if he becomes more notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hedford[edit]

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

Not notable; not featured in any notable articles independent of The Dandy Warhols. Lachlanusername (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Not really that notable but he has been in several bands. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:11, 16 October 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) 00:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to The Dandy Warhols, as the other members - Not quite notable on his own merits, this entry present just one reference, an article titled "The Dandy Warhols".....--Cavarrone (talk) 11:48, 21 October 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 15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Buckland[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE, and sources do not seem reliable. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this article on an award-winning voice artist who meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The nominator's concern toward sourcing is an issue best addressed through regular editing, as we do have multiple reliable sources which do address this person, directly and in detail,[24][25] and minimal WP:BEFORE easily confirms her as winning both the 2007 Anime Expo AND the 2007 Sakura-Con animated voice acting awards.[26] She has received awards notable to and by an industry, thus determining her to be worthy of note. Needing work encourages that such work be done, but does not always mandate deletion.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:02, 29 October 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) 00:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 03:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO#1 and also appears to pass WP:ENT#1.--Cavarrone (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The amount of uninformed/off topic material from both camps in this discussion makes it well-nigh impossible to draw any firm conclusions from it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaume Cañellas Galindo[edit]

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

No sources given. I couln't find any of the "Given work" in any library. It seems autopromotion (when a reference about being Save the Children's ambassor, Jaume Cañellas himself uploaded in causes.com a scanned document). He pretends to be ~~a figure~~ Amendment: I meant: "a notable figure". See discussion below. in psychiatry, but it's hard or even impossible to find one reference (excluding autoreferences, Facebook, linkedin, ...) in Internet about him. Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has done a great job in the defense of this specialty of psychiatry of children and adolescents over many years. As the driving force behind the platform of specialty was in Spain, it appears the Government has agreed to formally establishing the year 2010.

The Dr. Jaume Cañellas Galindo is one of the few experts on Child and adolescent psychiatry, with the official certificate approved by the European Union, who practices in Spain.

He was the creator and responsible for many institutions of Psychiatry and "Psicoperinatología" both in Spain and France. Is a reference for Hispano-americans psychiatrists. In your country (Spain) is consulted by the media in many cases of forensic criminology.

His writings are open to anyone on the Internet without censorship on their part. He´s working in numerous associations, portals and specialized pages nonprofit. Thus his writings on paper have been limited editions and have been exhausted quickly. In his own words "inform and educate is a right and an obligation we all have internet and thus should be free and democratically open to all."

He was named Ambassador for Save the Children Spain in late 2010 and can verify it turning up on the headquarters of Save the Children Spain = Save the Children Spain, Plaza Puerto Rubio n º 28, 28053 Madrid CP / Ms Marisol - Responsible for Social Mobilization.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumerperu (talk • contribs) 14:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumerperu (talk • contribs) 07:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Dr. Jaume Cañellas Galindo is a reference for hispano-americans psychiatrists. Gumersindoperu 14:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vote struck: user is confirmed sockpuppet of Gumerperu, who has already !voted above. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relevant psychiatrist for the hispano-american citizens in the world. ~~Rosamdcp~~ 20:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment actually by User:46.253.39.254, per this diff. This IP has !voted multiple times; struck multiple !votes below. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are ~~plenty of~~ more sources available if you search without the "Galindo", which is presumably his mother's maiden name and usually omitted in Spanish naming customs. Pburka (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there are better sources than the ones given by Gumerperu. Some of them are not relevant (most voted specialist in a commercial web page with... 9 votes!, support in a cause's support page, ...). Some other are in local newspapers, which do not talk about him, but he is just quoted as a specialist, or he talks as a representative of an association. Is there any reliable source which talks about his work, his contributions to psychiatry, about his great achievements? Why the main writer of this article is not able to give a single reference of his claimed work?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 20:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say "more sources". I'm not taking a position on his notability at this time, largely because the sources on Google news are all in Spanish. Pburka (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Article about one of the best Child and adolescent psychiatrists of the hispanic world. ~~Rocio2008~~ 02:37, 01 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment actually by User:46.253.39.254, per this diff. As this IP has already !voted above, I have struck this. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. References have been verified. Gumerperu 21:58, 01 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vote struck: user Gumerperu has already !voted above. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gumerperu and Gumersindoperu seem to be the same user, and this contribution and this contribution are made from the same IP. Isn't it sock-puppetry? It is also worth to remark that all these users have contributed mainly only in this very article. Besides, the article in Catalan Wikipedia (where the references in Spanish can be read and well understood) this article has been deleted for "autopromotion" (exaggerating CV...). --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Dr. Cañellas is not a "catalan nationalist ", is a spanish psychiatrist and the struggle for human rights without nationalist independence ideas. He is persecuted and slandered by some "catalan nationalists" who try to discredit and have deleted the article of the "Catalan Wikipedia" [[27]]. - But this article it is being advocated by citizens of the hispanic-american world. Rocio2008 02:12, 03 November 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in any discussion no one has talked about politics. By the way, I didn't know about his position about nationalism, but it does not confer him nor challenges his relevance. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a relevant article and is also referenced. ~~Rosamdcp~~ 19:42, 02 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment actually by User:46.253.39.254, per this diff. As this IP has already !voted above, I have struck this. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment: I've opened a request for sockpuppet investigation after seeing that all the keep-votes are given by the same 2 users and 1 ip.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution of the sockpuppet investigation: Gumerperu and Gumersindoperu are indeed the same user and they both have been blocked (1 week / indefinite, resp.). I don't know if Gumerperu can now answer here. I suppose not, and (as Gumerperu is the main editor of this article) it should be taken in account before closing this request.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if the IP which has been voting using crosswiki signatures was the same as the sockers, given this diff and others where they appear to edit one another's comments/signatures. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also pointed it out in the request for sockpuppet investigation, but it was told me that, for privacy reasons, no connection between IPs and users could be done. In particular, it was told me: "in a case like that, the reviewing admin will use behavioral evidence to take (or decline to take) action against the IP". --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 46.253.39.254 seem to be owned by a company from Cornellà del Terri (Girona). The IPs 81.25.123.133 and 81.25.123.153, which have been used to modify Gumerperu's personal page, as well as Jauma Cañellas' article, seems to be from Fornells de la Selva (Girona), 23 kms away from Cornellà del Terri. And, what's between this two places? Girona city, precisely the city where Jaume Cañellas works.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's important that we resist the temptation to imply that the sockpuppeteer is the article subject himself -- it could be an admiring relative, student, or colleague. (In fact, if I really wanted to embarrass someone I might do exactly what the socks are doing here!) But it's still sockpuppetry, of course. My recollection (correct me if I'm wrong) is that contributions by sockpeppeteer and sockpuppets alike are subject to striking, so I've done that. EEng (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't want to mean that the sockpuppeter is the article subject himself, but -considering the geographical relations-, it could be a close relative or friend. I don't know if there exists such a rule about striking contributions by sockpuppeters. In this case, there are still some more contributions that should be stricken.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 12:25, 7 November 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) 00:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. More participation from non-socks is needed here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe article is autopromotion, and lacks reliable sources. DinosaurDan (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another SPA.Sharonperez2000 (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another SPA. Not even have a page and has only come to attack this article.Gumerperu (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from other SPA accounts have not been deleted, so I restore this one. By the way, I'm pretty sure that when DinosaurDan made his/her first contribution on March 2009, (s)he already had in mind to "come to attack this article". I also recommend you (both?) to read carefully this. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 21:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article about a great Child and adolescent psychiatrist from Spain. Ambassador for Save the Children Spain ( Verified ).Dianaruttman1 (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another SPA who sounds exactly like the IPsocks above. And how did you happen to stumble upon this article? --Kinu ^t/_c 07:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that a child -- even a great one -- is permitted to be an adolescent psychitrist. Maybe the rules ~~are different in Spain~~changed when I wasn't paying attention. EEng (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, you must know perfectly well what is meant: the specialty covers children and adolescents. I think you're trying to mock a non-native English language contributor, or a non-anglophone area subject but you're doing it unsuccessfully.I suggest you strike out that comment. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you have found me out! But I was mocking an SPA (not a "contributor") by taking advantage of an ambiguity in a perfectly well formed sentence (not one characteristic of "non-native English"); non-anglophoniness played no role. So I decline to strike in general, but I will make a small adjustment to eliminate potential offense not intended. EEng (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It´s a well-known spanish psychiatrist. The references are authentic and have been verified. We dont have to delete an relevant article from Wikipedia.Spmdcp (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. References:

http://terranoticias.terra.es/sociedad/articulo/psiquiatria_infantil_juvenil_espana_1819326.htm http://www.consumer.es/web/es/salud/2007/09/05/166636.php http://www.vozasturias.com/politica/geriatrico-olot-exculpa-crimenes_0_382761841.html http://www.diaridegirona.cat/comarques/2010/12/01/expert-assegura-que-zelador-dolot-no-pateix-cap-trastorn-personalitat/449584.html http://www.unidosporlavida.org/Proyecto_adopcion/adhesiones.htm http://psiquiatrianet.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/un-psiquiatra-destapa-el-fraude-abortista-del-centro-medico-aragon/ http://www.europapress.es/00666/20070902140719/plataforma-medica-pide-reconozca-especialidad-psiquiatria-infantil-juvenil-espana.html http://plataformalunarm.foroes.net/t118-jaume-canellas-hablando-claro http://www.aspathi.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=958&highlight=#958 http://www.protomedicos.com/2008/05/06/presentacion-de-nuevo-colaborador-en-protomedicoscom-jaume-canellas-galindo/ http://quemedico.com/ https://sites.google.com/a/opensocial.org/opensocial/opensocial-foundation/community-rep-candidates#TOC-Jaume-Canellas-Galindo https://sites.google.com/a/opensocial.org/opensocial/opensocial-foundation/community-rep-candidates#TOC-Jaume-Canellas-Galindo http://www.hosppal.es/index.php?noticia=433 http://www.doctorweb.org/noticias/los-animales-resultan-ser-grandes-terapeutas-para-el-ser-humano http://www.abc.es/hemeroteca/historico-03-12-2007/abc/Sociedad/ya-que-ha-venido-a-la-clinica-aprietala-para-que-aborte_1641447282306.html http://www.wikilearning.com/curso_gratis/psiquiatria_infanto_juvenil-reflexiones_sobre_el_riesgo_de_suicidio_infantil/26932-2http://www.abc.es/hemeroteca/historico-28-05-2008/abc/Sociedad/una-juez-de-gerona-abre-una-investigacion-contra-otra-red-de-clinicas-abortistas_1641896679311.html http://www.trotalinks.com/Links/http.xn--jaumecaellas-ghb.com http://www.neurologia.tv/web/wiki/index/-/wiki/Main/Dr.+Jaume+Ca%C3%B1ellas+Galindo+%28M%C3%A9dico+Psiquiatra%29;jsessionid=C1A3AF29E559D6A6B7F6A2155FB9EF39 <http://www.neurologia.tv/web/wiki/index/-/wiki/Main/Dr.+Jaume+Ca%C3%B1ellas+Galindo+%28M%C3%A9dico+Psiquiatra%29%3bjsessionid%3dC1A3AF29E559D6A6B7F6A2155FB9EF39> http://www.diaridegirona.cat/comarques/2583/jaume-canellas-reclama-canvi-legislatiu/181366.html http://www.labiografia.com/ver_biografia.php?id=29391 http://www.psiquiatria.com/profesionales/?sql_modo=&sqlw_nombre=&sqlw_especialidad=1&sqlw_subespecialidad=23&sqlw_pais=es&sqlw_comunidad=Catalunya&sql_soloficha=1 Spmdcp (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another SPA providing the exact same "references" as the blocked sockpuppeteer above. SPI case opened. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, to add my two cents to this. Socking aside, no evidence from WP:RS that subject meets WP:GNG. References provided all appear to be primary and/or unreliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article about a renowned Spanish psychiatrist.

New references and significant references to the relevance of this article.

I checked some of your links and four out of four checked are directory listsings, self-descriptions, and so on, so I didn't bother looking at any more. Please point out which of the above is independent, reliably-sourced, indepth coverage, or stop wasting everyone's time (including your own). EEng (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. I just checked two more, and they don't contain the string Galindo.[reply]

Spanish names usually omit the "second surname". The point (as you already have stated thereafter) is that most of the references are trivial or don't give a significant coverage of this subject.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 10:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

He has done a great job in the defense of this specialty of Child and adolescent psychiatry over many years.

As the driving force behind the platform of specialty was in Spain.

The Dr. Jaume Cañellas Galindo is one of the few experts on Child and adolescent psychiatry, with the official certificate approved by the European Union.

He was the creator and responsible for many institutions of Psychiatry and "Psicoperinatología" both in Spain and France. In your country (Spain) is consulted by the media in many cases of forensic criminology.

He was named Ambassador for Save the Children Spain in late 2010 and can verify it turning up on the headquarters of Save the Children Spain.Gumerperu (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. More references:

Gumerperu (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide please a single independent secondary reliable source which talks about Jaume Cañellas Galindo directly in detail and not just as a trivial mention?. Moreover, could you please provide references of Jaume's written work that you insist on removing? What the hell are "Ed. Spain U.B" or "Ed. Barcelona"? Why can't I find these documents in any library? --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to put much more energy into this silliness... Any passing admin, please consider a second block on User talk:Gumerperu for continued disruption such as this? EEng (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (which I did not expect to say) I was confused by some of the references until I realized that in many cases he is referred to as Cañellas, not Galindo, as is common in Hispanic names. On actually reading some of the sources, several of them do make it very clear they consider him an expert and spokesman for the profession: [28] [29]. Others are indeed just directories, but I think there's enough to show notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP problem with the nomination: I very much object to the noms comment that " He pretends to be a figure in psychiatry, " -- this is a direct and blatant violation of BLP--even though not article space, this is abuse and insult of the subject. The question is whether he;s a notable figure in the field. that he is a figure in the field is very clear from the references. Saying an account of a living person is a hoax has to be done very carefully. At the least I think there should be a retraction and an apology, whether or not we keep the article. I'm not going to block a participant I disagree with in the middle of an AfD, but I consider this a blockable offense. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the specific sources out of the dozens pasted above. It only takes a few, if they meet the criteria. EEng (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to two of them in my keep paragraph. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both links refer to the same subject and in them, Jaume Cañellas talks merely as a representative of an association. This is far from being a significant coverage. I repeat my previous question: is there a single reference giving him a significant coverage? I haven't seen one yet...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, what Xtv means is that both of DGG's links link to identical text i.e. they're two "articles" masquerading as one. And as Xtv says, they are far from significant coverage. Here's a Yahoo translation: [30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng

Note to closing admin. I agree with DGG here. I recommend courtesy blanking this AFD after it's closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already apologized and corrected my mistake. See my apologize below.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : If you read the references it is clear that this is a notable expert psychiatrist. On some links it is not the full name (some items are not your mother's name - "Galindo"), but data and references for media confirm that it is a notable expert psychiatrist. It should prohibit attacks (vandalism own) and insults on Wikipedia. - Sharonperez2000 (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another SPA. Is this already the 5th?... (just guessing, I didn't count it...). Since it seems they haven't read the message above, we could consider writing with bold letters, size 150pt that this is not a majority vote.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize: Figure, in Oxford dictionary: "a person of a particular kind, especially one who is important or distinctive in some way:". I used the word "figure" meaning "one who is important or distinctive". I assumed "figure" meant "notable figure". This is so in my native language. If this was a false friend and in English "figure" does not necessarily mean "notable figure", I sincerely apologize: I didn't want to mean that Jaume Cañellas is not a psychiatrist, but I just wanted to mean that, according the given references, in my humble opinion, he is not a notable one.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Information: Figure

http://www.comg.cat/pub2/colegi/index.asp?capa=noticies&inici=../redaccio/notis-llistat-pagines.asp?seccio=2-COLEGI: Official Girona Medicine Web (COMG). Where you can see that a psychiatrist "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" and is registered in "Girona" ( SPAIN ), with the number "3275".Gumerperu (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.comg.cat/pub2/serveis/index.asp?capa=noticies&inici=../redaccio/notis-llistat-pagines.asp?seccio=3-SERVEIS :Please click below on "Asklepios" (Official Website of doctors in Girona - SPAIN) = "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" is the most popular link.Gumerperu (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC) The libel and defamation are reportable, ~~, so I'll try to get in touch with Dr. Jaume Cañellas Galindo telephone to report what's happening.~~Gumerperu (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) While it was wise of Gumerperu to withdraw the borderline legal threat (made at here, and seen above in ~~strikeout~~) -- though only after being scolded for it [31] -- it's inappropriate for him to whitewash what he did by removing it entirely from the discussion [32]. I've restored it in ~~strikout~~, if for no other reason than that it reveals a likely personal affiliation between Gumerperu and the article's subject.

(2) Xtv, you had nothing to apologize for. While "claims to be a notable figure in psychiatry" would have been better than "claims to be a figure in psychiatry", the connotation of the latter, in context, is obviously the former, and your words could not reasonably interpreted, in context, as implying that the subject isn't actually a psychiatrist.

(3) I'd wager Sharonperez2000 is yet another sockpuppet of Gumerperu since, after Sharonperez2000 made an unintelligible edit [33], 5 minutes later Gumerperu (apparently forgetting who he was logged in as) tried to clean it up [34] [35] Xtv, you know more about socks than I do -- can you open another SPI or add this example to an existing one?

EEng (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the previous block, if there is sockpuppetry, I suspect either (s)he will act behind proxies again, or use different computers. I think this is a blatant case of meatpuppetry and I suppose the administrators who review this AfD will already take it in account. Sincerely, after the recent accusations and warning I've had to deal, I'm already fed up, I don't feel like spending more hours reading the same trivial references over and over again. Three experienced users (+ 1 newbie, accused of SPA) think that there is no reference with significant coverage of this subject. At the other side, just one (inclusionist)* + Gumerperu with his/her troupe of sock/meat puppets. I give up, I leave this AfD and I hope the administrator who reads all this discussion (I'm sorry for him for all this long discussion) will evaluate carefully the reasons exposed.

* I hope "inclusionist" can't be understood negatively. It's just a descriptive situation, and I have no problem to admit I could be considered "deletionist". Let me know please if this context was not appropriate to use this word...

--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 10:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient sources for keep; arguments based on number of internet hits doesn't count one way or the other. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grey2K USA[edit]

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

This organisation has about 50.000 internet hits. That is remarkedly low for an organisation who claims to successfully petition for the prohibition of dog racing using the ballot initiative process. Google News only offers 5 hits. Unless they use other names for their campaigns, I regard them as not notable and this article as a way of self promotion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Search in the "archives" tab of Google news, like this. It will show news reports from the archives as well. The 5 results you mention are just the recent reports. Notability clearly established by various WP:RS. Lynch 7 15:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm, 321 hits on Google News. Not very impressive. It shows about 13 hits a year... Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've had articles with lesser than that. The number of news articles is never a criteria to determine notability. Not every organization is Microsoft or Apple to have an impossible number of hits. WP:ORG details the criteria. Lynch 7 16:20, 4 November 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, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensive coverage in books and magazines, such as here, here, here, here, here, an encyclopedia entry here, as well as extensive news coverage here, here, here, here, and here, where they are described as "one of Massachusetts' most politically active anti-gambling groups". Night of the Big Wind is making a classic WP:GOOGLEHITS argument, which is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion debates. There could be a topic that has hundreds of thousands of Google hits to blogs, YouTube and various social networking sites, and that topic would not be notable by Wikipedia standards. On the other hand, a topic could have only three or four good, solid hits turned up by a Google News Archive search, and still would be considered notable if there is significant coverage in high quality reliable sources, like this topic. When books published by solid publishing houses and major newspapers give significant coverage to a topic, then the topic is notable. Tens of thousands of Google hits are simply not required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing 2 Lose[edit]

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

Disputed PROD; does not seem notable enough for a separate article, having no sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. See WP:NSONG. Page should redirect to artist but attempts to do so have been changed back to an article repeatedly. Chzz ► 14:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal deletion?[edit]

First of all i haven't written the article but I am monitoring the article I noticed that since yesterday someone is trying to delete this article without any discussion on the talkpage. I thought that the wikipedia policy was to discuss any issues on the talkpages first. Concerning the image I have updated the copyright notice. I am the official representive of the offical fansite stated by busby media. The user who has written this article has contacted me about this article. All the information is retrieved from reliable sources. Sgt.Friso (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — Sgt.Friso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources? The only two references on the article are Facebook and YouTube - neither of which qualifies. Please see WP:IRS, WP:GNG. If you can provide evidence of coverage in reliable sources, please do. Thanks, Chzz ► 08:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are references are updated just check it out if it is suitable Sgt.Friso (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Sgt.Friso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect to Ray & Anita#Discography. None of the sourcing is sufficient to establish that this song is a notable one. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 2 November 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, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ray & Anita#Discography. The song isn't notable enough to have it's own article.DinosaurDan (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Flags of Austrian states. Sandstein 10:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms of the Austrian states[edit]

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

WP:NOTGALLERY ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. With Flags of Austrian states.User:Lucifero4

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, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge as above. Notwithstanding WP:NOTGALLERY, there are many galleries of flags and arms on WP - they are not indiscriminate, and serve to complement other articles (in this case, States of Austria). 109.154.73.118 (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. with Flags of Austrian states. patsw (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Paul Carey[edit]

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

Non-notable editor/author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 30 October 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, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete co-author of one book in a notable series, and some short stories. I don't think that's sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Firefly Cage[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:EPISODE. There is already an article on all of the Lovejoy episodes. This appears to be the only episode for which there is a separate article. Other than it being the first episode, there appears to be no basis for it. In the interest of full disclosure, I deleted some unsourced information from the article before nominating it. Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 October 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, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Lovejoy episodes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to List of Lovejoy episodes. This episode doesn't appear notable for itself.--Cavarrone (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular evolutionary algorithm[edit]

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

Seems to violate COI very strongly, also borders on Notability, Original Theories and seems to be a paper, not an encyclopedia article. Shashwat986 → talk 22:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 30 October 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, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. Assertions and information in the article are completely unsourced; although a list of scientific papers is given at the bottom, there is no indication how those papers relate to the current article. There is clearly a lot to say about evolutionary algorithms (see Category:Evolutionary algorithms) and the subject might be worthy of an article, but this isn't it. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original papers. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable crossover between cellular automata and evolutionary algorithms. Notability is certainly there, if article quality isn't, then that's a cleanup issue, not deletion. Even if COI requires us to dump the existing references (which it doesn't), the topic has plenty more to support it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. The article subject is a little above my pay grade, but let's see. It's true true that the article was written by E. Alba and all the sources are from E. Alba. This makes me leery. But there is also other material in the external links that seems to indicate that this a a real subject studied by various people in various organizations. And I gather that evolutionary algorithm is an important subject. And based on the external links this seems a valid subset of that. There are problems with the article, certainly. But per the above comment, these seem fixable -- at least in theory. An ((Expert-subject)) tag might be in order. Herostratus (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit. It seems very clear to me even from the title that most of the papers listed as references are about the subject. And it seems other people recognize the importance: the paper by Alba, "Parallelism and evolutionary algorithms" in IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, [36] a prestigious journal like all IEEE journals, has [37] has 415 references to it in google Scholar!. Some editing is needed, but perhaps not all that much. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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