< 5 November	7 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. Tone 19:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WindLegends[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources, advertising only. Doesn't come close to meeting any of the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (books). First book in the series shows in WorldCat of only being in three libraries, whereas notability guidelines say that if a book does not meet the threshold of being in a minimum of 12 libraries plus the national library it automatically is not considered notable. DreamGuy (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the results of the first AFD, this may qualify as a speedy delete under recreation of previously deleted content, depending upon if this version is similar to the old version. DreamGuy (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. And potential blocking of User:Windlegends for non-stop addition of mentions of the author Charlotte Boyett-Compo to various pages. They seem to have been up to this for a while so I don't think that they're going to stop anytime soon. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that speedy deletion does not appear to apply, as when it was last deleted five years ago, it appears to have been done on the basis of copyright violation, not discussion. Still, I see nothing here to indicate notability. Note also that the presumed COI SPA who created the article did so several years ago, so the proposals above are unlikely to serve any encyclopedic purpose. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find independent coverage. ^Bongo_matic 00:10, 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 Speedy delete, obviously. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loser Syndrome[edit]

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

This article I originally took to wp:CSD#G3 and was undone by an account that was created moments after I tagged it for csd. So I am taking it to AFD for further consideration. Enfcer (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G3 and nominator. Joefridayquaker (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, mix of vandalism and vague attack page. Hairhorn (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, WP:CSD#G3, and misandry. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:31, 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. Snow keep. Article has been cleanup addressing the deletion concerns. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dog daycare[edit]

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

Poorly written, largely unsourced article. Long tagged for improvement yet little has been done. Biker Biker (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The actual subject is a valid one being that it's not boarding kennels and it's not pet sitting so sort of comes in-between. The current article though is abysmal and needs starting again from scratch, preferably by someone whose first language is English and doesn't have a case of the galloping CoI's. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's poor, it's trivial, but we've worse than this and basic notability does seem to have been achieved. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly encyclopedic topic. Weakness of an article is not cause for deletion. Carrite (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spam masquerading as an article. The one source to Time does not notability make per WP:ORG. I'm sorry to disagree with you Andy, but WP:OTHERSTUFF etc. etc. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Carrite, I believe it is a relevant encyclopedic topic, however it needs massive cleanup and further information. i'll search for some good sources before making any changes though. Killemall22 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic topic, but poor article. Taking a long time to improve is not a reason for deletion. Miyagawa (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that it is a relevant topic, different than a kennel, and will be useful to people once it is added to and made a better article. --MLKLewis (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most certainly encyclopedic, of educational value, and sufficient secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - so rescue it! Bearian (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Real thing, ample coverage. Dream Focus 08:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Like --The Pink Oboe says, it's not kennels and not pet sitting. WP:NOTCLEANUP. CallawayRox (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have cleaned up this poopy article. Now I know a lot more about the rise of doggie daycare; these are the kinds of cultural trends that happen to us when we are not looking.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job Milo! CallawayRox (talk) 18:19, 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 Withdrawn by proposer. Withdrawn by proposer Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TheChive.com[edit]

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

Almost all sources are from business profiles. Fails WP:NOTABLE Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - did not realize there was an high Alexa ranking and multiple sources in the mix. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:07, 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 delete. Tone 19:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Jim Lodge[edit]

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

Speculation and conjecture on subject matter - a cardboard box - which does not include any reasonable referencing . . . patent nonsense? Artiquities (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G1 - the article floats around so many subjects, I can't make heads or tails from anything. →Σ τ c. 22:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oppose speedy. The topic is genuine, and appears to be notable. The apparent incomprehensibility of the matters expressed here is part of the point, I suspect. There is a group of Austrian artists going by this name and enough written about them and their journal to establish notability. The corresponding article in the German wikipedia is very different and suggests that it ought to be possible to improve this one fairly easily (even the business about the cardboard box could stay if an RS is provided, because it says something about the nature of the group and what it represents). But the editing should be done by somebody claiming to understand the world these artists inhabit and able to represent it to readers. NPOV demands that we do not just delete because we might think it is nonsense - much of 20th century art could be questioned on the same terms.--AJHingston (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup. Speedy declined. The article is slightly too intelligible to qualify for that CSD criterion, in my admittedly subjective opinion. That said, the group appears notable for one stunt, at outside most, and does not satisfy WP:ORG criteria unless more clear criteria for notability are met as outlined by that policy page. - Vianello (Talk) 08:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. 74.0.139.105 (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of book hits—one not independent, one not significant—don't confer notability. ^Bongo_matic 00:43, 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 delete. v/r - T P 02:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mole (MC/producer)[edit]

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

Odd little one, has been up for AfD before back in 2005 and has yet really to show anything to support notability. Most of the article seems like self-promotion as few other editors besides some anons and SPAs are maintaining the article. For someone with as long a discography as they have (bearing in mind it's a partial one too) it seems highly unlikely that this article in all the time its been around has gone with absolutely no sourcing at all.

So, simple recap, fails WP:BIO, WP:BAND, isn't verifiable outside of first party sources and is essentially a longstanding puff piece that escaped deletion for so long through simple obscurity. tutterMouse (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, not notable Themanfromscene24 (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any sources. There's nothing on him on Google Books or News when I try "The Mole" + various keywords. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simply because I didn't link to it in the first place and for disclousure, here's the previous AfD from 2005 tutterMouse (talk) 22:57, 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 19:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dugout[edit]

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

This page cites no reliable sources. I see nothing that would make this website be considered notable; per GNG, there's no significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The contents of the site, represented as "parody", can border on attack or libel, and thus this should be deleted. — KV5 • Talk • 21:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a non-notable website; I can find no sources whatsoever which mention this website. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG, lacking significant, independent coverage from multiple reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a funny light-hearted parody site, but I don't think there's anything to satisfy WP:WEB or WP:GNG. I think the whole claim of it being a libelous attack site is taking it more than bit far, though. That'd be like saying Saturday Night Live is filled with nothing but libelous lies or some other nonsense. Just delete it, don't curbstomp the parody site as some sort of evil libelous attack site. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 01:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to say that the contents of the site were libel, but rather that our reporting only certain elements which are untrue and cast aspersions on players' character could be construed as such. Perhaps I was unclear. — KV5 • Talk • 22:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the speedy deletion tag that ItsZippy added. I was able to find this article in Gelf Magazine, there's a mention in the Village Voice here, and the Wall Street Journal has mentioned the website (and linked to it) multiple times including here, here, and here for example. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the sources. The Village Voice and WSJ is trvial per WP:WEB: "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site." Would need more sources on par with Gelf.—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 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 19:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherburn White Rose F.C.[edit]

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

This club has never played at a notable level of football. Contested PROD. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the WP:GNG and, as a non-professional team, is not notable as a football club. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. I'd also criticise the user who deprodded this article (is showing up once or twice a month just to deprod several articles which clearly fail the guidelines/consensus not approaching disruptive behaviour?) for forcing yet another pointless AfD. Number 5 7 21:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:23, 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 19:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recycle Rama[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable local recycling event. The only reliable source [1] is about recycling and does not even mention Recycle Rama, so this article is unverifiable by readers. Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems non-notable. I cannot even find any local news coverage of the event, never mind anything to present notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see anything notable about this event. Eeekster (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, local event. andy (talk) 14:07, 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 redirect to Dan Worton. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Warton[edit]

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

This is a page where the name is spelled wrong. You can find an exact duplicate of the page with the name being spelled Dan Worton —cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 20:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a misspelled page, then redirect to Dan Worton. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Dan Worton as a plausible typo. In fact, it should've been redirected before this deletion discussion ever occurred. →Σ τ c. 22:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I don't know why I didn't think of that. I requested this deletion for a user who claims they are inexperienced with Wikipedia.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 23:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the page a redirect to Dan Worton. Thanks for the advice.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:01, 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. v/r - T P 02:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Brunner[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not held any significant political position so is not notable, and there seems to be no reliable sources either. I would delete now and only recreate in the future if he takes on a significant political role. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Majority of links/references come from his campaign website, with one local paper article about his candidacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aequo (talk • contribs) 06:16, 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. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. Non-English reliable sources have been found establishing the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duck blood and vermicelli soup[edit]

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

We aren't a cookbook CTJF83 20:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot see any reason why this recipe is especially notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not a recipe, it's a soup. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Duck blood soup is a notable delicacy not only in China but in other countries such as Vietnam and Poland - see czernina. There seem to be plenty of sources out there for this, e.g. Duck's Blood, Puffer Fish and Dog. English language sources will tend to present this as a novelty but we should not bias our coverage towards the cuisine of English-speakers. Food like cheesesteak or grits may well seem weird to other cultures... Warden (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it definitely needs to be cleaned so it can be along the same lines as the bird's nest soup entry. I'll try to work on it sometime tonight but if anyone wants to beat me to it, feel free. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment. The nominator has not advanced any coherent argument for deletion. I'm sure that we all agree that Wikipedia is not a cookbook, by why does that mean that this encyclopedia article, 90% of whose content is not cookbook material, should be deleted rather than edited? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any sources on why it passes WP:GNG...although I only speak English. CTJF83 23:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aparantly duck blood is considered to be a Chinese remedy for anemia: http://books.google.com/books?id=chVAT5NOTaoC&pg=PA120&dq=Duck+blood+soup&hl=en&ei=-Jm5ToPYEaegiQKT_ZH2BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Duck%20blood%20soup&f=false--MLKLewis (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - A notable delicacy in China and Poland.

•Pang, Kevin Pang; Borrelli, Christopher (October 27, 2011). "There will be blood. Chicago Tribune.

•"Duck Blood and Vermicelli Soup"

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found. This is a notable food. Dream Focus 23:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Although western people cannot understand why such food are popular in China, it is the truth that this soup is famous, and loved by Chinese people. people outside China may get used to such culture from such articles. --Michelle jx (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This easily passes WP:GNG, and googling the Chinese name shows that easily. This appears to be a case of systemic bias (see List of sandwiches.) Nominating for deletion on the grounds that "...We aren't a cookbook..." doesn't make sense to me. That would, however, make a fine edit summary when removing a recipe from a dish article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is important to have articles on notable traditional dishes of the various cuisines of the world.--Pharos (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and serve with prawn crackers. A subject can have notability even in the total absence of non-English sources, so it can clearly be notable when there are multiple English-language sources plus a very large number of sources in other languages. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the how to parts have now been removed, and coverage shows it is notable. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:06, 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 Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marza R Millar[edit]

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

notability not established Travis Thurston+ 19:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could have been speedied under A7: the article does not even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --MLKLewis (talk) 21:14, 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. Invalid deletion rationale. v/r - T P 02:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish politicians[edit]

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

Out of date, difficult to maintain, no addition to list since at least Jan 2010, a properly maintained set of the data can be found in Category:Political office-holders in Ireland Rye1967 (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being out-of-date and difficult to maintain are not valid reasons for deletion. ALL articles are "difficult" to maintain. The arguement that the data can be found in a category fails WP:CLN. This is a notable list of notable individuals. Lugnuts (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As someone who has edited this article frequently in the past, I had to eventually had to give up. The scope of the list is too big, it is impossible to maintain, I know I tried! It's all very trite to say keep it because all articles are difficult to maintain, the fact is that NO-ONE is maintaining it. The intro says it is supposed to cover all "public-representative office-holders in Ireland, elected and appointed since 1918 up to the present day, in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The offices covered are TDs, MEPs, Presidents, Councillors, MPs, Stormont MPs, Members of the Sunningdale Assembly (as Mem.NI.Assmb), MLAs, Senators, Commissioners and Members of the Irish House of Commons (as Mem IHC). Holders of other offices, such as Kings-representative (i.e. Governors General) or historical offices such as High King of Ireland are listed in the Others section." Wow, that's quite a list then. I haven't seen other countries maintaining huge lists of all offices holders for several centuries.

The main article should point to Lists of party politicians or List by office. The all-inclusive list is a legacy of the days when there was very limited coverage of politicians, but as coverage grows it cannot possibly accommodate all the types of office-holders it seeks to include. The complete list would probably have well over 5,000 entries, which woukd be utterly unusable. I think that a list-of-lists structure is probably the best we can do, as with List of Australian politicians and List of German politicians examples. Snappy (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Since no party lists exist, I support renaming it to List of TDs and setting it as redirect to Members of the 31st Dáil. A quick look at list of German politicans shows that suffers from the same 'no-maintenance' issue. Created enthusiastically in Apr 2009, loadsa redlinks or no-links, and no significant changes since (List of Natzis is the exception). Not expanded following the Sept 2009 Federal elections. The german version points to the Kategorie: instead. --Rye1967 (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that proposal. Snappy (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The question of whether this should be subdivided into a list of lists should be discussed on the article talk page, but I'm sure that any reasonable outcome of such a discussion would not involve turning this into a red link and deleting its history. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 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. Odd AFD. I'm going to just go ahead and count everything after the relist as a change in consensus. v/r - T P 02:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Romantic Tragedy[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, no full length album even released yet, and only trivial coverage I'll also WP:A9 the albums when/if this article is deleted CTJF83 chat 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable: Fails WP:MUS and WP:GNG. Probably auto-biographical as well, orignal author is a single-issue editor, User:Trtmusic: This Romantic Tragedy... Coincidence? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he/she's been blocked for having a promotional user name. Rehevkor ✉ 16:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I can't find enough coverage to support an article, never mind addressing the notability issues. A search through 20 pages of Google results came up with 0 usable sources that I could see. I am a fan, but I can see they're not notable. They sucked since ditching their singer anyway. Rehevkor ✉ 16:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I closed this AFD last year but I'm reopening this AFD per this request on my talk page. It seems that they have released their first album and it has charted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like an odd thing to do...reopen an old AfD. CTJF83 02:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. Though this is the oldest AFD I have reopened the same guidelines apply and since this AFD only had 3 participants and they're all still active, I thought I would give them a chance to reconsider new information here instead of at DRV. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm okay with it. The rationale behind reopening the AFD is that the band charted at #26 on the Billboard Heatseakers Chart. My feeling is that this does not satisfy criterion #2 of WP:MUS: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." By its very definition, the Heatseakers Album Chart does not chart acts that have appeared in the top 100 of the national music chart. However, I would imagine the band may have generated additional press that might satisfy WP:GNG or may satisfy WP:MUS in some other way. So Neutral for now. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I'm not sure Heatseakers really counts here, as it gives weight only to new/"developing" acts it's hard to tell how much of an achievement it actually is. Searching for sources coverage still doesn't give much. Some fairly minor stuff from Dead Press, Absolutepunk, reliable sources? There's an Allmusic review. Just not sure. It's a start I suppose.. Яehevkor ✉ 22:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sputnikmusic, IMP Magazine, Musicreview, Dead Press, AllMusic (Reviews) and AbsolutePunk (Tour announcement). That is enough. Keep and not deletee --Goroth (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:25, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though the chart position itself did not convince me (as it was a seemingly non-notable chart), the recent sources provided by Goroth suggest notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Struck old !vote above as it no longer applies but will default to neutral per my previous comments. Яehevkor ✉ 16:51, 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. v/r - T P 02:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AsoP Romania[edit]

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

I can't speak Romanian, so it is possible I'm missing something, but I see no reliable, third-party coverage treating this association in detail. Contested prod. Neutrality^talk 03:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a Romanian speaker, I can confirm that nothing indicating notability stands out. All I can find are blogs, commercial notices, résumés, that type of thing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:31, 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} 19:11, 6 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, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing except for company profiles and this brief article on a recent project plan. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Biruitorul. No reliable coverage has been found. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:43, 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 WP:G12 by User:Malik Shabazz. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 17:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines ICT Center[edit]

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

Previously proposed for deletion but author removed tag. This article reads like a press release from the university and fails to demonstrate how this organization is in any way notable. At minimum this article would not to be rewritten as a subsection on the university's main Wikipedia page. Tejanse (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete uses primary sources, fails WP:ORG.LibStar (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps the remainder of the pages in that garish navbox on the page should be given a look-see too... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 6 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} 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio from http://www.pup.edu.ph/ResearchExtensionDevelopment/ictc/ and http://www.pup.edu.ph/ResearchExtensionDevelopment/ictc/history.asp -- Whpq (talk) 20:55, 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 19:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy (2012 film)[edit]

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

Future film that is announced for February 2012. There is one (reliable?) source in the article, but this is an encyclopadia and neither an announcement plattform for the film industry nor a free web space provider for film aficionados who wanna be first with the newest rumours. Ben Ben (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: A Prod was declined by an IP user.--Ben Ben (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFF seems to apply here, and there's absolutely no assertion or demonstration of notability, nor any clear indication of possible reliable sources --Miskwito (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree completely with Miskwito. This article is clearly in violation of WP:NFF and clearly fails WP:GNG. Chris (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per WP:TOOSOON. The planned film is getting some coverage,[2][3][4][5][6][7] but not enough to merit being an "possible" exception to WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:10, 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 delete. Tone 19:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of excessive EU self-promotion[edit]

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

I have been trying to salvage something from this article, but it is really almost entirely original research full of loaded messages. Whilst it contains plenty of references to the EU publications it is criticising, except in a couple of cases it does not contain references to the criticisms themselves and is thus mostly expressing the author's view. WP:SOAPBOX Jll (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither my basic agreement with this position, nor my frustration with the stream of EU Research Projects using Wikipedia, prevent me seeing an essay, a POV synthesis that doesn't belong here. Perhaps individual documented facts might be appended to the European Union article and its sub-articles, but it seems unlikely that this can become a suitable article in itself. AllyD (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above; stream-of-consciousness essay. Neutrality^talk 04:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The original author clearly has a political axe to grind and is using this as a platform. There is nothing really savable. The premise of the piece seems to be that it is wrong for an organisation to produce positive stories about itself. I can't off hand think of an organisation that deliberately puts out bad self publicity.Malcolma (talk) 10:24, 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 already speedily deleted by User:Ronhjones; the article creator blanked the page, thus making it eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite Boys[edit]

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

How can he be active from 2012? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 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 speedy delete. as hoax — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Evil Rising[edit]

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

Film releasing in 2015, so WP:CRYSTAL, also the sole source is Facebook, one of the most unreliable source. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE As above, WP:CRYSTAL. The Facebook page does not seem to mention the film either, in addition to being an unreliable source. GILO A&E⇑ 17:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; no reliable sources. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. No reliable sources at all.--Ben Ben (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be either presently un-notable or a hoax.--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 18:36, 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. v/r - T P 02:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voxatron[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Unsourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:54, 6 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) 17:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot really say it is unsourced, as there is a link to the website about it. Notability is not yet proved though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's be precise. If you count a link to a page on the publisher's web site selling the game as a source, then precisely the following facts about it are sourced: (1) it is a game; (2) presumably to someone who knows what "voxel" is, "Voxatron comes with a fancy voxel designer" is a source for "the graphics are voxel-based". Nothing else stated in the article is sourced, and even that has no independent source. We need independent sources in order to establish notability, and a link to a page selling it on the publisher's site selling it is useless for the purpose. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary sources (like the game's website) are fine for confirming facts, but do absolutely nothing to establish that the subject is notable under our policies. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about what wikipedia's policy on such issues is, so feel free to correct me, but 150000 sales in less than two weeks is fairly big. Big enough to make it notable in my mind. An up to date figure can be found on the humble bundle page. I'd be happy to write a little for the page, though not while it's up for deletion on a claim of unnotability. Regards. 80.176.130.184 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be - sources that show those sales would be welcome, especially if they talk about the game itself rather than the bundle that happens to include it. I'll see if I can track some down this evening. If you have such sources, post'em here and we'll add them. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The game is currently only available through the humble bundle, so all sales come from that. Although the bundle includes other games currently, I believe it was only voxatron for at least the first day, and voxatron is still the title game. 80.176.130.184 (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It IS notable with 111 Google News results for 'Voxatron'. SalfEnergy 13:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, 111? I make it 11. And some of those 11 look to me more like press releases than impartial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look through the Google News results. They're about the Humble Voxatron Debut, not Voxatron itself. In fact, a number of them are about other games being added to the bundle. The only thing I found in those results covering Voxatron specifically is a "review" of the unfinished game from a site called zConnection. Reach Out to the Truth 17:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of what happens when people say "keep" purely on the basis of the number of Google hits, without checking their quality and relevance. (Quite apart, of course, from having misread the number of Google hits.) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although most are infact about the bundle itself, they all somewhat mention Voxatron itself, even if it's just one sentence. SalfEnergy 00:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so, but passing one-sentence mentions in a handful of sources are not the kind of substantial coverage required for Wikipedia's notability standards. JamesBWatson (talk)

Delete. Lacks reliable, substantial coverage in third party sources. Being included in a notable bundle, even giving its name to one, does not automatically make a game notable unless it results in coverage of the game itself. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:46, 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 19:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anogi F.C.[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The reason for the PROD was "Non-notable amateur club per WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN.". Nfitz (talk · contribs) contested it, with the reason: "4-year old articles that exist in another language shouldn't be PRODded - take to AFD" Well, that's what I do now.

I'm also nominating the following five articles for deletion. All contested PRODs by the same editor:

There is lack of reliable third-party sources to justify notability in any case (thus failing WP:GNG). Also, the same articles in foreign wikis feature no or unsuitable references. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 17:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 17:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - article haviung existed for a few years, or having a foreign language equivalent, are not acceptable reasons to keep. I can't see any evidence of notability here. Giant Snowman 13:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:21, 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 no consensus. v/r - T P 02:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fame Kills: Starring Kanye West and Lady Gaga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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)).

DELETE= This article should be deleted as it is about a tour that never happened. It is, in essence, a list of tour dates that never occurred with a few tibits of information. It was deleted before, so I don't know why it's been recreated. All of the relevant information is already in The Monster Ball Tour article. SplashScreen (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PREVIOUS DELETION = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fame Kills: Starring Lady Gaga and Kanye West SplashScreen (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although cancelled, the planned tour has adequate sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It never happened, and all the information can be found on other Kanye and Gaga articles, like SplashScreen said, like on The Fame Monster Ball Tour. The fact that it has already been deleted once shows that it shouldn't have created again (unless the tour actually happened, which it didn't). If it was any other singer, then it wouldn't have been created again, so I don't see this should be an exception. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 00:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First off, SplashScreen, as the creator and primary contributor of this article, I should have been notified of this discussion. A tour not taking place does not mean that it isn't notable. As noted by Rlendog, this article has adequate sourcing and thus passes the GNG. Furthermore, when this article was deleted the first time around, there was hardly any information other than a list of dates. This has much more information regarding the tour and its development and planning. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE= This show never happened, its not like we create a page for the bionic tour, a canceled tour by christina aguilera. Its not like we should create a page for her name is nicole, and canceled album by nicole scherzinger. This page should be deledeted, because this material never happended, and monster ball was replaced. why have a page of something that never happened?? --Mathiassandell (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Mathiassandell (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Why have a page for something that never took place? Because it was notable as shown by the number of references throughout the article. Your WP:WAX arguments fall flat because the Bionic Tour and Nicole Scherzinger's album were not as notable or as covered in reliable sources as this. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator, User:SplashScreen, has been canvassing by only informing users who have expressed concern about the notability of the article of this discussion. Even I, the creator and primary contributor of the article, was not notified. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After you expressed concerns about not being notified, I felt it was right to inform other who had contributed to the page and its talk page. What's wrong with that? SplashScreen (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you only notified people who had posted on the talk page saying that the tour is not notable and that this article should be deleted. You didn't notify me or anyone who had contributed to the article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable enough on its own. — Status {^talk_contribs 00:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It meets WP:GNG and it's not like there are any separate guidelines (like WP:NMUSIC) standing in it's way... | ^help _dןǝɥ | 04:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I cannot believe that something which never took place has a page! All this page needs is a section on The Monsterball Tour. Its completely ridiculous that a thing that never existed and was only at planning stage is being discussed. This page lacks notability and needs to be deleted. JWAD ^{Communicate|Nicely} 09:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Jwad (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Several editors have said that this passes the WP:GNG, so it would be appreciated if you could expand on why you think this isn't notable. Something doesn't have to have taken place for it to be notable. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst it's notable that the planned concerts and their subsequent cancellations occurred, this is not notable in its own right. The relevant information is included on The Monster Ball Tour. Pretty sure that the article's existence violates WP:RPDA. 188.220.151.140 (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, it doesn't. The article was originally deleted when the tour was just cancelled. And it was a pretty small article. — Status {^talk_contribs 02:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The version presented in the previous AFD was just pure crap. This is a much more worthy and notable version, passing our criterias for inclusion in WP. Oh and the nominators sockpuppetry and canvassing is just laughable. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is unbeliveble that we have a page for something that does not extist, yes the tour can be mentioned briefly on lady gaga biography or the monster ball, but have a page whit tour dates???? i dont get it, and have it listed in lady gaga temple, and in her tour chronology, when only the the fame ball and the monster ball should be listed! this much info about something that got canceled is so unnecessary! --Mathiassandell (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've already !voted. Removed the bolded "delete" at the beginning of this comment. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI believe this article barely passes notability Elektrik Band 00:23, 15 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 19:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McLaughlin (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While its been four years since the last nommination, Mr. McLaughlin still has not played in a fully pro league or for the Northern Ireland national team. All coverage he seems have received are routine transfer announcements. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE etc. Number 5 7 21:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG due to lack of any siginificant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 19:21, 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. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wowser[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia entry about the concept of a wowser or lout, but rather a dictionary entry on the word "wowser". Per Wikipedia policy, words can be encyclopedic topics, but there is nothing here outside of what would be found in a comprehensive dictionary entry. Powers ^T 16:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's more than just dictionary content here, for example the reference from The Oxford History of Australia: vol 4: 1901–42 about their place in Australian society. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Australian Encyclopaedia has a nice definition: "an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder". Such types are sadly all too common and we have many articles about them: puritan, bluenose, busybody, killjoy, &c. There may be some scope for merger but the Antipodean history is distinctive and so perhaps best kept under this heading. Warden (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I'm going to assume that this article has been improved greatly since nomination, as it is absolutely an encyclopedic approach to a discussion of the word. This article is not a dictionary definition, and is totally worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Colonel Tom 08:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it was a dictionary definition; I said it's a dictionary entry. Powers ^T 12:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you did. My apologies. If you prefer, my last sentence above can now read "This article is not a dictionary entry, and is totally worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia." Colon el Tom 02:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in this article that would be out of place in a comprehensive dictionary entry. Powers ^T 13:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as highly notable term in Australia, as a Google Books or Google Scholar search will show. -- 202.124.75.178 (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 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 redirect to Singam. This is done without prejudice to the article being re-developed later, if notability is asserted sufficiently after the film is released. Anything worth merging can be done from the history, obviously ensuring content is attributed. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singam 2[edit]

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

Future film should be deleted as per WP:NFF. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 14:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Singam until Singam 2 begins filming. EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redirecting to Singam might also be another good option. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 16:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Singam as stated above by other editors. Johannes003 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per above →Σ τ c. 22:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question : Has the film even been confirmed to go on floors for a redirect? Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's extensive talk about it, which makes it slightly notable, but nothing's confirmed, so a redirect is pretty appropriate. EelamStyleZ (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect : Create a new section titled Sequel in the article Singam and move it there with redirect to that link Singam#Sequel. --WorLD8115 (TalK) 12:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unless official word from producer or else is given, it is useless to even create such a section. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 13:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per User:world8115, as such is not useless to our readers at all. Specially as policy specifically states that "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced," AND as long as editors do not insert their own opinions or analyses in such discussion. As clarified at WP:Planned films... if a film is not yet ready for its own article, it is appropriate to find a home for properly sourced information at a suitable redirect target. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've pretty much acheived a consensus here so why isn't anything being done to this article? Redirect or no, this page shouldn't be an article yet. It's going out of hand with this edit here. These users need to be warned to stop uploading fan-made images and stop creating articles prematurely. EelamStyleZ (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Inappropiate edits will be dealt with as they usually are... and I will hope new editors are aware of WP:PRIMER. As we are now at 7 days, a close is imminent and in a few hours the matter will be rendered moot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 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. Deletion concerns have been addressed. Notability has been established. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja Express[edit]

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

This article is clearly nothing more than a self-promoting advertisement. Written poorly, with bias, the entire article is a mess. It is overly detailed, selling a specific itinerary, including redundant descriptions of sites. The Maharaja Express is not 'notable' following Wikipedia guidelines. Noozman (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Noozman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As your very first edit was a well executed AfD nomination, can you please inform us who your account is a sock of? --Oakshade (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not an SPA, I've been editing without an account for a while, I've only just decided to create an account. --Noozman (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only is it a named train, but it easily passes our WP:NOTABILITY guidelines and specifically WP:GNG with some very in-depth coverage, particularly by the articles from Times of India about this train. The nom brings up valid editorial issues that can be resolved with editing. --Oakshade (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted by Oakshade, this is a named train which is, as such, very likely notable simply for that fact; a check of sources shows that the article is clearly about a notable subject. The article is a promotional mess, that is for sure - but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. As a named train and with sourcing available, this appears to meet WP:GNG. The promotional mess, such as the obvious promotional wording, the redundant attractions section, the overly detailed itineraries, etc., can be cleaned up; I've started the process of excising and rewording. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up, pruning of the excessive promotional detail. As I understnad it all Indian train services are named. In UK, we have articles on every railway station, though many have little substantive content. I thus see no reason for not having an articles on train service. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 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. Tone 19:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Biological Materials[edit]

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

Just another company. Fails WP:CORP even before WP:GNG considerations might apply. Shirt58 (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a company that develops and markets biological reagents. ABM also markets custom vector cloning and cell immortalization services. So this is where I can order my unstoppable army of immortal clones? That would rate them an encyclopedia article, at any rate; but the only claim to importance is that a politician made a speech there praising them. Significant effects on culture, history, or technology needs more. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 16:46, 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 19:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuart Hill Cricket Club[edit]

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

I'm unable to find even passing mentions of this club in gnews, so I don't think it comes close to the significant coverage that's required to pass WP:GNG. Also fails WP:CRIN because they do not play at the grade cricket level. Taking to AfD rather than PROD because the women's team has a small claim to notability in that they play at the top level of cricket in WA and they are the home team of Zoe Goss, an Australian representative – but I am still unable to find any significant coverage. Jenks24 (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I couldn't find significant coverage either. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:03, 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. v/r - T P 02:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tummel[edit]

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

Music group with no assertion of notability, I had declined speedy prior to make it a redirect Alexandria (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Try these:

Ben Ohmart, The Muse's Muse - CD Review: Tummel - Klezmer. 17 Nov 2001.

Chris Nickson CD Universe Review "A Danish/Swedish band with no deep Jewish roots playing klezmer? Well, why not, especially when it's done as well as Tummel does on Klezmer."

Eelco Schilder Folkworld CD Reviews - Tummel 'Oy' "Oy is a fresh, strong cd and highly recommended to everybody who likes Klezmer music."

Robert M Tilendis Green Man Review - Tummel 'Payback Time' "Think about the band playing on while the Titanic goes down. Think of some of Joel Gray's bitchier numbers in Cabaret. Think of Josephine Baker at her most outrageous taking Paris by storm. Think of a bunch of crazy Swedes with no inhibitions whatsoever getting together and letting everyone have it, right between the eyes. That might give an inkling of the tone of Tummel's Payback Time."

I think that would be enough to demonstrate Notability. Actually I had a quick listen too. Not bad! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have swiftly added these reviews (with a few more quotes) to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was only aware that Tummel was well known enough in Sweden to be regarded as notable, but Chiswick Chap has shown above that - in addition to this - the band also has an international reputation which I was not aware of. /FredrikT (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to Chiswick Chap's sourcing. The Steve 00:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to meet any of the criteria listed in WP:BAND. First criterion is non-trivial coverage "in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" - the reviews listed seem to be more akin to blogs than online versions of print media (correct me if I'm wrong). 126.109.230.149 (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Band says "at least one of the following criteria".

Criterion #1 says "..subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works in all forms.." - we have here the long-standing and very reputable FolkWorld.de's CD Reviews which have been trusted and helpful to folk music fans like me for over 10 years now; and the very large and respected CD Universe which writes "reliable, independent" reviews of thousands of CDs. Together these certainly meet WP:Band. The Muse's Muse is not a blog, either, but a long-standing songwriting website, founded in 1995, so it is not only independent and reliable, but written with knowledge. The Green Man Review is more of a music blog - perhaps you were referring to this, but a considered and thoughtful one, and in any case it's just a supplementary source.

If that's not enough (I suggest it should be) then recall that WP:Band Criterion#5 has "released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels". 'Payback Time' and 'Transit' were both released on CD Baby.Com/Indys, which is a very large, possibly the largest, indie label. Klezmerized/Oy was released by Arc Music, founded in 1976, which has released over 700 CDs of folk and world music. It is probably (as it claims) the largest world music label in, er, the world. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:Band says at least one, which is why I said fails to meet ANY of the criteria. Folkworld, CD Baby.com etc, Muse Muse's, etc: you can put any adjective in front of them that you want, that doesn't mean it's true. If each of these sources meet WP:RS, prove it! Don't just spout meaningless nonsense like "long-standing and very reputable", "trusted and helpful to folk music fans like for over 10 years", "not a blog but a long-standing songwriting website", "founded in 1995, so it is not only independent and reliable, but written with knowledge" etc. You're completely missing the point.126.109.230.149 (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails to meet ANY of the criteria"? Although you may not consider the publications ChiswickChap quotes notable enough you haven't even addressed what he says about the records issued on established labels (nor what I've written below about the coverage in Sydsvenskan). /FredrikT (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FredrikT, I'm sorry that you failed too realize that Chipwit's claims about the importance of the labels were just as vacuous as his claims about how long-standing and reputable those other sites were. He didn't provide any proof for any of his claims. Also, quoting "fails to meet ANY of the criteria" with a question mark appended implies that you wanted to discuss how they meet some of the other criteria - maybe you forgot to? 126.109.230.149 (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the band has been written about and had at least one of its records reviewed by Sydsvenskan which is a major Swedish newspaper. I've added a couple of links to that paper in the article. /FredrikT (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 < "a couple of". I don't know, is a single review in a local newspaper enough for inclusion? Does that qualify as non-trivial? As for the "article about the band in Sydsvenskan", it was actually published in Sydsvenskan-owned free newspaper/weekly event listings magazine "Dygnet Runt" (similar to Time Out New York) in connection to a listed concert - i.e. the article might have been paid for. 126.109.230.149 (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For non-Swedish readers it should perhaps be pointed out that Sydsvenskan which 126.109.230.149 refers to above as "a local newspaper" is Sweden's 4th biggest morning paper and 6th biggest paper if you also count the evening tabloids (see the sales figures on page 5 of this summary of the Swedish press in 2010). And back in 2007 (at least if I recall correctly) Dygnet runt was not a free paper but a part of the regular issue with ordinary editorial material. The article in question (as well as the later CD review) is also written by Alexander Agrell, a long-standing regular music journalist at Sydsvenskan.

It should also be noted that I have only added two references to Tummel in Sydsvenskan out of the 25 possible ones you get when you search the paper's online edition. Here are a few more:

[8] Journalist Emma Thörnkvist lists the band's website as "the best site".
[9] Tummel used as a reference when describing another klezmer band in a review
[10] [11] an article and a blog post, both by Sydsvenskan's regular rock critic Håkan Engström, about the band "Babian" in which it is specially noticed that some of members of that band are former Tummel musicians.
[12] Article about the annual klezmer festival of Lund, where one of the other participating artists is qouted saying that "many are probably coming just to see Tummel"

And so on - this is from 2009-2011 only. The list of articles goes back to 2005. /FredrikT (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those able to read Swedish I would recommend having a look at the article's Swedish discussion page where much additional media coverage has been recently listed, amongst them the fact that a performance by the band has been broadcast as "Veckans konsert" (concert of the week) on Swedish national television [13]. /FredrikT (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FredrikT, if you can bear it, it would be very helpful if you could add a few of these extra links to the article, preferably with some short quotations from what Håkan Engström and others have written about Tummel. Then Notability will be bortom tvivel as one might say... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do, but I'm a bit short of time at the moment. And writing takes more time than just finding sources, especially if you're not writing in your own language. /FredrikT (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References Added - I have looked up the Sydsvenskan, Skanskan and Swedish Television articles and created references from them, using FredrikT's comments - hope this is all right. I've translated one of them in the Reception section - there's a lot more work to do to make full use of the references, but I have no doubt the band is Notable with such good and frequent media coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe User:FredrikT and I have answered the criticisms offered by 126.109.230.149 by adding citations and quotations by reviewers to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 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. I'll note that aside from a single weak keep, all of the other keep !voters are sockpuppets. v/r - T P 02:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellorpink[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)(AllMusic)

Non-notable musician, only news hits are to his hometown newspaper, I can find no reliable sources in the first five plus Google pages I looked through. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a fine well-written entry. His album sold well through my distribution company for years, and this is as legit as any other Wikipedia entry. No need to delete.WantLess (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article itself sites to several reviews and articles from the UK as well as to an article from the magazine PopMatters, none of which are local to the musician. The very first page of Google turns up numerous YouTube video links, a Twitter link, internaitonal and national lyric links, etc.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Zero references, no indication of wp:notability. An electronic only album by an artist who does not have an article in Wikipedia. I wish the artist the best but IMHO that is the wiki-reality. North8000 (talk)

14:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

*KEEP. There are lots of references on the Chancellorpink page and lots of indications of notability, in Europe and all throughout the US. More than 79,500 Google link references associated with this artist. There is only 1 electronic-only album. There are Four (4) albums by Chancellorpink that are available in CD format on Amazon.com, ALLMusic.com, etc., for commercial sale. He has released 4 Studio Albums since 2006, which, again, are available commercially across the globe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.119.41 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — 24.2.119.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

One of the very first references cited in the Chancellorpink wiki is for a review of one of his internationally released albums in The Epoch Times. The Epoch Times is an International paper, released both online as well as in print in the following nations: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States. Further, that paper is released in the followsing languages: Chinese | Korean | French | German | Spanish | Japanese | Russian | Ukrainian | Hebrew | Romanian | Bulgarian | Slovak | Swedish | Indonesian | Vietnamese. So Chancellorpink has been written about in all of those languages in print. Also, here is a review of one of his CDs written in German and released in Germany: http://www.crossover-agm.de/cdChancellorpink08.htm. To claim that Chancellorpink has only articles local to his hometown and that he has no indication of notability is simply incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.119.41 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC) IP blocked by checkuser Gerardw (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are not proof of notbility. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Well how about this ARTICLE (not a review), then, from a radio station in Sacramento, California (many miles from Pittsburgh, PA, last time I checked): http://twirlradio.com/2008/03/01/featured-artist-marchapril-2008-chancellorpink. Obviously, they seem to have taken note of Chancellorpink out west. Plus common sense says that if people in Europe (such as, once again, here in Germany: http://www.dailypop.de/index.php/chancellorpink-%E2%80%93-still-life-self-portrait-cadillac/) are writing about a guy from Pittsburgh PA, they are probably listening to his music in that far off land, nowhere close to his hometown, which is probably why they are also watching Chancellorpink YouTube Videos of his songs and why his songs are still being played on stations in the UK and in Canada, like just last week on LG73 in Vancouver http://www.lg73.ca/. I'm not sure how you define notability, but when several different countries and continents have taken notice of a solo artist musician from Pittsburgh, PA by writing reviews and articles about him and playing his music on the radio, and the guy only started recording solo in 2006, I'd say that would be "notability" in most people's books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.119.41 (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) IP blocked by checkuser Gerardw (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

twirlradio.com is not a reliable source. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the guidelines for reliable sources, and Twirl Radio absolutely applies. As does the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, which is cited in the piece, and PopMatters. Here...read about the site PopMatters: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/about I'd say that's the epitome of the definition for a reliable source. The Chancellorpink page should absolutely stay. Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the refs don't exactly scream reliability, but there are plenty of them, some are quite detailed (non-trivial) and independent. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)withdrawn see below[reply]

Lots of non-reliable sources do not trump the lack of reliable sources, especially when it comes to a BLP. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*I don't see how anyone could call the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette an unreliable source. It is one of America's oldest newspapers and is still in print and going strong. Read about it. Yes it's local to the artist, but given the additional and significant International notice Chancellorpink has received, the authority of the Post-Gazette should be recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.119.41 (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC) IP blocked by checkuser Gerardw (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to be thorough, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which is definitely a reliable source, has written at least 3 articles, that I could find, (NONE of them reviews..they are actual pieces in the published newspaper, about Chancellorpink): http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09113/964844-388.stm, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08045/857097-388.stm and http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06180/701887-42.stm. So, that's 3 articles by a reliable source indicating notability. When combined with the additional sources noted above and in the wiki, many of which are quite detailed (as was stated by Tigerboy) and International, I think it really has to be a KEEP to any reasonable mind. Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at WP:MUSICBIO, it seems that no contributor disputes that the article doesn't meet points 2 thru 12. (example - Notability is not being claimed for the label, Wax Electric.) Point 1 is the issue. I don't think that "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." has been demonstrated. The Epoch Times isn't exactly reliable -IMHO - for example. I wish the musician well, whatever the result of this AfD. Colon el Tom 12:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.theepochtimes.com/ What is not reliable about it? That you haven't heard of it? What is not reliable about PopMatters? About Twirl radio? That you haven't heard of them? What is not reliable about the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette? That you are a Patriots fan? lol But...seriously. Also, it has to be noted that this AFD was only started by Mark of the Beast after someone vandalized the page. Someone with a personal grudge deleted the entire page and replaced it with a sentence designed to be a slur. Go look at the history. Although that was immediately reversed, within only 3 minutes Mark of the Beast appeared and listed the page for deletion. As such, I challenge his/her motive. Finally, if you truly wished the musician well you'd realize that he is still making music, and so perhaps he may show up in a source YOU might consider reliable tomorrow. He is already in numerous that I consider reliable and independent today. The criteria has been met. Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've certainly heard of the Epoch Times. I've read it several times. It's a single issue newspaper devoted to the downfall of Chinese communism. It is inherently biased. I do not suggest that the bias flows to 100 word album reviews that they use as (IMHO) filler between the political articles, but I do believe that it is an unreliable source. That aside - in my opinion, notability hasn't been proven as far as I'm concerned. This is NOT a criticism of the musical merits of the performer, or of the good work done in compiling this article. Colon el Tom 19:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More on the Epoch Times. Here is its print subscription page: http://subscribe.theepochtimes.com/ There are a couple reader testimonials there. It's an International newspaper, both online and in print in numerous countries, as indicated above. Again, this is only one of about 20 independent sources cited in the Chancellorpink wiki page.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of keeps. I pretty much agree with Col Tom's analysis, however, I'm willing to let the article squeak by on the Epoch Times/Pitt Gazette coverage. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:45, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist is written up twice in PopMatters, which is actually my favorite American music (and movie) mag -- reliable, independent and, well, good! He also has several UK write-ups, including one from Americana-UK, which is another music site I read often and find to be excellent and reliable as a source for cool music. Those two sources alone meet criteria 1. Additionally, the artist has the very long piece from the radio station in Cali (Twirl), and multiple pieces on German music sites, including one even written in German. Add in The Epoch Times and the 3 write-ups from the Pittsburgh paper, and the sources are multiple, non-trivial, definitely independent and several are actually very reliable to fans of indie and original music.Soundsational (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC) User has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bubblegumcrunch. —DoRD (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a bit startled that this has been relisted. The keeps were all evidence based, the deletes were assertions of the "No It's Not" variety. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your comment. The keeps are on the basis of "look at all of these unreliable sources" variety. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page was vandalized, completely erased and replaced by two sentences designed to be a slur. Three minutes later, the page was AFD. Now, as before, you assert only that sources are "unreliable", without offering more. There is a standard for reliability on this site that contains several factors, including whether or not a source has an editorial board, publishes regularly in a field or on a topic, etc. That standard has been met here by several sources. Not once have you addressed why you consider the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to be an unreliable source. Similarly, you have never addressed why PopMatters, Americana-UK or The Epoch Times, all of which have editorial personnel and publish regularly, all of which are read by thousands of people all over the world, are somehow "unreliable". You merely state that they are. Others have presented clear evidence (such as editorial page links and testimonials by readers of the sources) that demonstrate the sources to be reliable.[User:Bubblegumcrunch|Bubblegumcrunch]] (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bubble, please remember to assume good faith. Markotb is applying the guidelines as he interprets them. You & I disagree with him. That's why we're here.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tigerboy, I always assume good faith where it is warranted. I quote, from the Good Faith link you cited: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism)." Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the version I nominated for deletion, which was the version that was reverted to after the vandalism was removed. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? My position is very clear. Mark of the Beast has never addressed why he first WENT to the page, only 3 minuets after a vandal blanked the page, to nominate it for deletion. It would take longer than 3 minutes to carefully review the page and its sources in order to reach a proper conclusion as to whether or not notability was met. Yet the nomination occurred 3 minutes after the vanadalism/reversion. That's simply not enough time to make a good faith nomination for deletion, and the timing of the visit and nomination clearly appears to aid a vandal in their desired goal: to eliminate the page. It was a page that stood unmolested for nearly 3 years. Then a vandal blanks it and replaces it with a slur, which is immediately reverted. Then 3 minutes later, Mark of the Beast appears to nominate the page for deletion. Again, where is the time to review the page? How could a nomination be made in such short time? Why would it be made, on a page that had just been rescued from vandalism? Then after the nomination is made, the vandal reappears to add some language to the reverted page, and that language is reverted again. Mark of the Beast has never answered the questions as to why he went to the page, only 3 minutes after it was vandalized, and chose to nominate it for deletion, only three minutes after a vandal tried to remove the page, etc. His nomination comes sandwiched between two acts of vandalism by the same person, and it is made in a period of time that is simply not sufficient to indicate a good faith nomination. I believe the timing of these acts of vandalism, in relation to Mark of the Beast's nomination for deletion, should render his nomination as questionable, at best, with respect to good faith. I believe the good faith doctrine says as much, expressly. I believe the nomination should be dismissed, especially as the nomination is meritless on the facts. If nothing else, the timing of the nomination appears to be an effort to give the vandal what the vandal wanted, the destruction of the page. I would hope this site would look down upon any efforts that would appear to aid in the service of vandalism. One does not have to BE a vandal, but to in any way aid a vandal's end should call into question good faith. A nomination for deletion made in 3 minutes or less, following vandalism, fails to meet the standard of good faith.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Multiple reliable sources confirm notability.Herstorybuff (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)~~ User has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bubblegumcrunch. —DoRD (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment new user joins WP and votes in AfD 3 minutes later. Oh dear.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2011

Comment No vandalism that I can see, so I'm gonna go ahead and assume good faith on Herstorybuff's part. I will also state unequivocally that I do not know who Herstorybuff is.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism)."Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom,Kanatonian (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nom has nothing to do with who, why nominated it but does it meet notability? I would argue it fails. If you can provide arguments as to why not, would be good. Kanatonian (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Multiple reliable sources showing notability have already been cited numerous times above, to include: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, PopMatters, Americana UK, The Epoch Times, The Pittsburgh City Paper, God is in the TV -- all of which have editorial boards and editors and publish regularly, especially in the music industry. The standard for notability has been met. If you'd like to revise the standard for "reliable source" so that it requires deletion of any artist who wasn't written up ion the NY Times, or so that it defined "reliable" as, "One of these select few sources...(list)", I am sure that can be done. But as the standard reads now, it has been met here. In fact, several of the sources cited are quite notable in the indie rock industry, which, after all, is the designed audience for the artist's page. With all due respect, how can someone who is unfamiliar with the indie rock industry comment on whether one of its sources is reliable.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm refraining from frequent comment, because this just isn't that important in the grand scheme of things - but I would like to suggest that a 100 word review in the non-notable and unreliable Epoch Times does not confer notability, no matter how often the opposing claim is made. By Wikipedia standards, the same claim can be made for the other reviews and mentions-in-passing that are referenced here. I apologise for the repetition, but notability per Wikipedia standards has not been asserted for this article. Colon el Tom 11:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in passing, all articles and reviews cited are detailed, and if you take the time to count the words, you will see that they outnumber 100. Also, there are no "mention-in-passing" sources cited at all, all are pieces written on the artist.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Epoch Times review I was referring to, currently citation 5 in the article, is an 84 word review. The two Post-Gazette citations (currently 6 & 8) are weekly columns on the local music scene. They also cover the closing of local bars and other local music activity. These were the 'mention-in-passing's I was referring to. Colon el Tom 20:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The AllMusic refs are completely empty of content. Very unusual for the site. The rest of the refs are essentially non-notable sites and blogs. I fixed the refs to make them easier to follow. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentActually, many artists who appear on AllMusic don't even have a picture for their profile, or their albums are listed, but without pictures or credits for the albums, or there are no song snippets to listen to. In fact, Chancellorpink's AllMusic actually includes an electronic-only album that was released for download.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could change it to a strong delete based on Bubblegumcrunch's insistence. The musician is an attorney who plays music for the fun of it and he has likely paid for whatever coverage he has. No notable sources other than AllMusic have covered him. The artist is non-notable per WP:BAND. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Change it to whatever you like, and say whatever unsubstantiated slurs you like about the artist. My "insistence" was merely to clarify something you said that was inaccurate about what is "very unusual" for AllMusic. But while here answering your call, I will list the following sources again, all of which are credible, especially in the industry in question, all of which have written in detail about the artist, and two alone of which meet the standard you site: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, PopMatters, Americana UK, The Epoch Times, The Pittsburgh City Paper, Twirl Radio, God is in the TV, Leicester Bangs.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to apologize for coming back and posting so often. I promise this will be my last remark on the matter. The fact is that I manage Chancellorpink and have known him for 25 years, even back when his very first band, Six Gun Jury, received regular rotation airplay in 1988. He may be an attorney, but he's a hard working musician, and, believe me when I say that he has earned every bit of press coverage and radio airplay he has received. I wrote his Wikipedia page back in 2009 because he deserves one. I believe him to be a notable musician. If the editors here disagree, so be it. But I do believe that a careful review of the applicable standard, and of the content and nature of the sources writing about this musician, will allow his Wikipedia page to stand.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artist has been performing since the late '80s and has released CDs in the past prior to everything going digital. I have one, in fact, which I have also played on both my radio station and on a Canadian one on which I do shows. Yes, he mostly self-promotes, but so do most unsigned indie artists. There is a musical legacy, time spent with other bands and 22 references on the page. This is a professional artist and not a vanity project. Ezreal (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment withdrawing keep. Feel that COI issues SPAs etc mean that the case has lost all credibility.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I am a music critic from the UK and discovered Chancellorpink's music three years ago, whilst working for a music website. Since then I have written several positive reviews of his music and have been recruited to write for Clash magazine. Whilst Wikipedia continues to provide space for countless artists of little or no worth, it would be a travesty to remove one who has a true passion for his art and an ability to convert it. Should the page be removed then it would be a sad refletion on the credibility of Wikipedia and not Chancellorpink! 80.87.20.140 (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)— 80.87.20.140 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'll politely WP:AGF. If you think that this is a notable artist, anonymous editor, I encourage you to add some citations to the article that will demonstrate notability that has not been previously demonstrated. If you do so, please comment here so that the closing admin and other editors are aware of your additions and can quickly assess them. I will make the point that subjective assessments of talent, skill et cetera aren't relevant in determining notability per Wikipedia's criteria.

To put it another way ...If your articles have already been cited, I encourage you to state which ones are yours. If they haven't been cited, cite them by all means. Colon el Tom 10:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI reviewed "Life Like Sad Music" in March 09 on the God Is In The TV site and this has now been archived. I reviewed "Still Life Self Portrait & Cadillac" for the Indie MP3 site in March 10; the site no longer exists. Therefore, I am able to provide no evidence of these reviews. However, if you wish to verify my credentials, here are the links (all on Wikipedia) to three other reviews I have written this year:- http://www.clashmusic.com/reviews/glasvegas-euphoric-heartbreak, http://www.clashmusic.com/reviews/fucked-up-david-comes-to-life, http://www.clashmusic.com/reviews/thurston-moore-demolished-thoughts. Why this debate is even taking place baffles me, Chancellorpink is a credible international artist who is merely expressing his art for the pleasure of others. If your servers are running out of space, then there are several other unworthy artists I could recommend deleting!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.87.20.140 (talk • contribs) — 80.87.20.140 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Internet Archive has snapshots of clashmusic.com. Please post links to the chancellorpink reviews. Gerardw (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my previous response again, the reviews of Chancellorpink were NOT in Clash as they preceeded my working for them. Here is a link to the God Is In The TV review, which also got picked up by Dailypop: http://www.dailypop.de/index.php/chancellorpink-%E2%80%93-still-life-self-portrait-cadillac/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.87.20.140 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In addition, the link you provided to dailypop contains nothing from which to write a biography. It might be used to discuss his works, but not himself. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't even a proper review, the phrase "if you click gently on the website link below, you will discover that all the tracks can be listened to and even downloaded" is a bit of a giveaway. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Enough substantial coverage from reliable and independent sources to show notability.Williamdesign (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Williamdesign (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above is this editor's only contribution to Wikipedia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:54, 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) 03:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devolvement[edit]

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

No discernible notable topic here. An article on the generic concept of devolvement (aka devolution) would be one thing; an article on how it's used in the Reserve Bank of India would be something else. If either of these is notable, start an article on it, from sources. Just noticed, we do have an article on Devolution, so this bit about India's bank can be merge there if people think it's worth a mention Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, devolvement is a term of art in the investment/securities field [14][15] and might have particular meaning in India [16]. It doesn't appear to be the same topic as devolution as used in that article, which is as a political term. This article does require a great deal of work, but it looks to me like it might be a valid topic. Station1 (talk) 19:28, 27 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} 23:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Linguistically seems to be an unusual synonym for delegation (in the verb sense). A quick google suggests it is a general term (if not widely-known by laypeople) and isn't limited to India. As such, the article isn't really NPOV. It looks like the concept is somewhat notable, so someone interested or with surplus time on their hands could fix it up. If that's not going to happen, I'd perfectly feel happier if it were deleted, purely on NPOV grounds. SamBC(talk) 13:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Agree with Station1, but a more global view needs to be represented as per SamBC. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:59, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You simply have to follow the search links above to see that the topic is notable, e.g. Investment Banking; Financial Services In India; Fundamentals of Financial Instruments. And we should not merge to devolution as that is a quite different topic. Warden (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't you agree that, in the interests of NPOV, it needs to take a more global view rather than describing it as exclusively Indian? My quick googling certainly suggested it's a broader term than that. SamBC(talk) 13:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a real thing, and the encyclopedia should have an article about this. Dream Focus 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's short, it just meets WP:Stub, but it is an important term in India and should be mentioned here, maybe instead of deleting this people could improve this, make it longer, better, more detailed, see WP:Imperfect. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A valid term, with a short description, but should be retained with improvements. Perhaps the term only applies to India, perhaps not. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:06, 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. v/r - T P 02:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Goldberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication he meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a memorial piece. Fails notability guidelines as a politician (losing candidate for NYC City Council) and as a website proprietor. Notability seems connected to family relations, including his clearly notable brother, who is a nationally known political columnist. My condolences to family and friends with respect to the subject's unfortunate recent death. Carrite (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know he's likely not to be considered individually notable, but don't see why content can't largely be put into personal section of mother's article. I see no reason to eliminate this content from the project.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & keep content: Though this editor would rather see this article kept since the events are newsworthy (and if you enter the

blogosphere you might discover that his death has never been fully explained) Milowent's suggestion that it be merged into the mother article seems to be the proper solution- I do resent the article being called a memorial piece it is disrespectful and truthfully find the offhand condolences disengenousMasterknighted (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the official term for what Wikipedia is NOT and am completely earnest in my condolences, of which I find your challenging to be tactless. I won't get into the conspiracy theories of the blogosphere but will leave that to others; it certainly doesn't add towards notability in my own view. Carrite (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL#MEMORIAL. Carrite (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carrite, when invoking a law or regulation for another entity and then offering condolences you come across as a law giver as if a decision has been made before it has and it appears to me not to be in good tasteMasterknighted (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:NOTMEMORIAL#MEMORIAL--Kylfingers (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO requirements.NearTheZoo (talk) 23:12, 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 Speedy Keep No argument for deletion advanced. The nominator may have intended to nominate Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija Philippines which has been redirected but that is neither clear nor in the scope of this AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Domingo, Nueva Ecija[edit]

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

Article already in Santo Domingo, Nueva Ecija. Bonvallite (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, I don't understand the rationale. Geschichte (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Neither do I. I think it has something to do with the merge request on the page, though. →Σ τ c. 22:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Reason #1, nomination does not advance an argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why, pray tell, should we delete this? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:26, 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. v/r - T P 02:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English Electric Canberra (book)[edit]

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

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

Both of these books were prodded in the past, with the prods contested by stating "the book is referenced and both author and publisher are notable". However, notability is not inherited. Although these books have received good reviews, from experts in the field, there is no breadth of coverage, and they have made no cultural impact outside of the aviation history community (and very little impact there either), and have no significance sufficent to establish notability. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t see the point of this Afd, the Wikipedia is not some elitist place otherwise many articles would be removed and for Wikipedia:WikiProject Books it’s fine as it meets Notability. If you read notability is not inherited, you would see that the exception is Books, Film and Music, these need reviews.This is all about a source of information and the wikipedia is a global project. The important thing for an article is that there are references to back up the information and both these articles have those from good sources. The Lightning book shows that it was a best seller in Grimsby, therefore already being of interest. Just because those in another Wikipedia project are not happy doesn’t mean it is not important to others. What next? The removal of The Berlin Raids (book)? I will be working on this book at some stage and giving it what is required, which is independent third party references. --BSTemple (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not particularly notable books, lots of aircraft books and monographs have been produced and a rarely notable, appear to part of a series of promotional articles on the books of Bruce Barrymore Halpenny being an author notable enough (?) for an article doesnt make the books notable. Although not the same author you are right perhaps The Berlin Raids (book) should also be nominated for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it meets the criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia books. The aviation side is immaterial, the main point is that it has been reviewed and these reviews can be used to create the article. Any book, Film or music that has been reviewed can be included. And no The Berlin Raids (book) should not be deleted.--BSTemple (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIRECTORY would seem to apply here - there is no need to include book after book after non-fiction book just because it has been reviewed. This is Wikipedia, not Amazon.com. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIRECTORY does nor apply here. We are on about Wikipedia:Notability (books) where clearly the books are meeting notability and what has Amazon got to do with it? Amazon is not a reliable source for articles. You are applying criteria for other articles that do not apply to that of Books, Film and Music.--BSTemple (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that if we say "This book was reviewed by signifcant, reliable source X, that review is enough to have an article", we will soon have an article on virtually every book ever printed that says "Book X is about Y and was favourably reviewed by Z". In the case of a fiction book or film that is sufficent, but in the case of a book about a real-world thing that already has its own article, I'm not sure that that is what Wikipedia is for. If the book makes a best-seller list that is one thing; simply existing is another. But if the Book Rules say otherwise, the AfD can be withdrawn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) The book notability think is only a guideline it doesnt trump the general notability requirements and common sense. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book articles are often put to Afds because they fail to provide third party reliable sources, in other words Reviews. It's the reviews that are used to build the article, not publishers blurb etc. These articles meet that criteria well, with Reviews that are independent of the book itself.--BSTemple (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't see how they establish notability per the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure your point? We seem to be going around in circles here. You give the GNG, where it states: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. That is a Review that I have been pointing out. The Wikipedia is quite clear on all this. If you look on Wikipedia:Notability on the right in the box under Notability - Subject specific guidelines – go down to the one that says “Books”. There you will see it clearly states: This page in a nutshell: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria… and number 1 is: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. These are the Reviews.--BSTemple (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then this needs to be changed. Wikipeida does not need an article on every book ever reviewed. And personally, I would consider reviews "trivial". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, but the Wikipedia is a global project bringing millions of people together through online collaboration and interaction from around the world. The aim of the Wikipedia is to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopaedia. Since it has virtually unlimited disk space, it can have far more topics than can be covered by any conventional print encyclopaedias. It also contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic, are you suggesting this material is removed? I don’t work on these or even like some of them, but I would never seek to have them removed just because I don’t like them. And one has to ask, who are you to decide what is and is not acceptable on the Wikipedia? This is a matter for all. I fear you have lost the meaning and spirit of the Wikipedia.--BSTemple (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below: I will never use a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. Please do not assume bad faith on the part of other editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 independent reliable sources = GNG met. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither are sufficiently notable in their own right. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The GNG has been met as has the Notability guidelines for books. So the only reason someone is giving to delete, is because they don’t like it. That can be applied to any article and therefore makes having any guidelines pointless. The main reason for an Afd is to see if an article has met the guidelines set and these have. --BSTemple (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not my argument here. My argument is that book reviews are routine coverage and do not confer notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but you are wrong in trying to apply these to the book articles as book reviews are what are required for the Book articles. They meet Notability for Wikipedia:WikiProject Books as well as WP:GNG. All books are included as long as they meet this criteria. The links you have always given are either not related to the topic (ie a book article) or else has only reaffirmed what I have been saying. You give the link to WP:ROUTINE, this is generally about news items and single events (Sammy lost his dog so someone creates an article about it just because a newspaper ran the story). These are not reviews, but even here it confirms yet again what I am saying, such as WP:DIVERSE. I am not assuming bad faith on your part, just trying to show you that you are wrong on an Afd for a book article when it is meeting the criteria for an article. This is the Wikipedia policy, not mine alone. There can be an article on any and all books as long as independent reviews are used. I do not agree with you that book reviews are routine coverage and you will note they were not mentioned in WP:ROUTINE. --BSTemple (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, given that the policy fits, ~~we must acquit~~I'll withdraw the AfD and see about arguing possible changes to the policy in the proper places at a later date. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews establish notability for books. English Electric Canberra, as referenced in the article, has been reviewed in Lincolnshire Echo and FlyPast; English Electric/BAC Lightning has been reviewed in Grimsby Telegraph. AfD is not the proper venue for amending notability guidelines. Goodvac (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book appears to be fairly obscure. The reviews provided are from regional newspapers and a specialist magazine, and so aren't very useful in establishing notability. Moreover, according to its Google Books record, the book was published by Pen & Sword Aviation; this company specialises in works by semi-amateur and amateur historians on specialist topics and few of their new books are reviewed in major publications (eg, a national or major city newspaper) or cited in other works (note that the company does sometimes reprint prominent books which other companies originally published). As such, the amount of coverage available on this book seems to be insufficient to establish notability, and it can't be assumed that further coverage exists or that the book has been referenced by other writers. Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note you conveniently missed a few points. So Osprey Publishing also deals with semi-amateur and amateur historians? And are you saying the Daily Mail United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper after The Sun is a regional newspaper? And FlyPast is Britain's top-selling aviation magazine. But in any case a review from any independent source is what is required for book articles, which these are. --BSTemple (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relevance of Osprey books? I doubt that many (any?) of them are notable either as they're also rarely reviewed. I also don't understand why you're referring to the Daily Mail - it hasn't been identified as having reviewed the book in the article or the above discussion - has it actually published a review of it? The Flypast review seems to be the best of those on offer, yet it's titled 'Aviation Showcase', which suggests that the review was small and/or part of a review of multiple books and Flypast is a specialist magazine with (I suspect) a fairly limited circulation. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion is due to two books being put on this Afd. I was refering to English Electric/BAC Lightning (book) regarding the Daily Mail. But the main point is that Reviews establish notability for books and these reviews can be from any source as long as they are independent of the book. That means all books and all reviews. The point of the Wikipedia is to make it a Global Encyclopedia about many subjects, not just the same old ones that every Encyclopedia has. These articles meet the criteria set by the Wikipedia and as such this Afd should never have been made. --BSTemple (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed that English Electric/BAC Lightning (book) had been included in this nomination. The Daily Mail review gets that one across the notability threshold, though the prose of the article is spammy (as is the prose of the article on the Canberra book). WP:NBOOKS is only a guideline so it doesn't need to be followed, and an argument that that a couple of reviews in local newspapers and what's probably a brief review in a specialist magazine establishes notability is inconsistent with the normal interpretation of notability criteria (which requires that the level of coverage be significant and that the sources be reliable). Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I wasn't aware of the Books standard being so different from the rest of Wikipedia at the time I created the AfD. One 3x6 column in a magazine about anything else (person, aircraft, doohickey) doesn't establish notability under the WP:GNG, whereas for books, it is apparently considered that it does. I'm still stunned at there being such a hole in the notability requirements, one big enough to fly a Concorde through, but consensus is consensus I guess... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that as a guideline WP:NBOOKS is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (to quote WP:GUIDES). A person or organisation with the kind of coverage available here would almost certainly not be considered notable, so common sense points towards the books not being notable either. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states for WP:NBOOKS: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Which the articles have, but I cannot see that as only a guideline so it doesn't need to be followed otherwise why create the guidline? That will put many articles out of line and the WP:NBOOKS says This includes published works in all forms. Editors have to have something to work to and those that work on book articles work to these. That is why Wikipedia clearly points to Books being a seperate Notability area and the creation of WP:NBOOKS. And by the way guys, I'm not trying to be confrontational or funny, just putting forward the case :) --BSTemple (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until about July that guideline required that at least some of the references serve a "general audience". I think that this discussion is illustrating that removing that criteria without any kind of replacement is problematical. While editors do obviously need references to use, they also shouldn't be working on articles on topics which aren't notable, and these articles appear to have been created to advertise the books judging from the spammy prose and use of obscure offline references. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see that these articles have been created to advertise the books as one of the books, the Lightning one, is I think out of print. I have been all around the Wikipedia and keep coming back to the same points that show under the guidelines these book articles have been met. This does have an impact on many many more book articles other than just these two. --BSTemple (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the nominator's declaration that "these books have received good reviews, from experts in the field," which appears to acknowledge that the GNG is satisfied. Arguing that books on aviation history have no impact beyond the field of aviation history is like arguing that Taylor Swift fails WP:PROF. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article for the author. Obvious solution. The reviews in the article are not sufficient. If NBOOKS is interpreted that liberally as suggested here, almost any non-fiction book will be notable. And for any book, we have consistently said the local reviews don't count, because in essence they are indiscriminate for local authors. And even for non-local authors, at least a few of the many places any author speaks at on a book tour will happen to attract a reporter. I agree that the articles basically are advertising, but there's nothing wrong with a redirect to the article on the author. NBOOKS had the ordinary run of fiction in mind--any specialist book will be reviewed, But requiring general reviews was also wrong, because almost no specialist book will ever have them. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect would be OK from here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 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 delete. v/r - T P 02:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Air Force Crash/Ejection History[edit]

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

List of non-notable aviation incidents. — CharlieEchoTango — 01:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Entries in lists are not required to be individually notable, the question is whether the topic is suitably notable, which I would claim this is. This is obviously not better served as a category, leaving list as the best option. As to "non-notable aviation incidents", many of these include loss of life, and, while not directly stated, descriptions infer loss of airframe; while significant coverage of these entries separately may not meet notability standards, as a list, it appears adequately sourced, although, like most articles, it might benefit from attention. Dru of Id (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, I will just point out that it would be somewhat odd not to list non-notable incidents in articles on aircraft, airports or airlines/air forces, but then create a stand-alone list of incidents which are not necessarily fatal or hull-losses. I'm also unsure if the listed incidents have been mentioned as a group by a variety of reliable sources, per WP:LISTN (no consensus on the 'requirement' though, so not a guideline per se). Cheers, — CharlieEchoTango — 02:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per WP:NNC, it's entirely plausible to have lists of content which does not individually rise to the level of notability. It allows us to cover information in one spot, rather than in a ton of tiny little articles which cannot provide context without being quite repetitive. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jclemens. This would be true if the topic were of overall notability, but WP:NNC does not address the issue of the notability of a topic, only the inclusion of content in articles. Topic notability != Content notability. Would it be plausible to have a list of types of fruits sold in Wal-Mart Montreal North? This is essentially what NCC says when taken in the context of lists (such as in this case), but you will agree with me the topic is utterly not notable and has no encyclopedic value.

The bottom line is that lists are not exempted from the notability requirements (with the exception of lists of notable topics and lists of lists). In the present case it needs to be demonstrated that the topic of 'fighter-jets crashes and ejections in the RCAF since 1972' is notable, and WP:NNC is irrelevant to that. That being said, I think there is a case to be made whether an all-inclusive list of RCAF incidents since its inception in 1924 is a notable topic. Certainly the current one isn't. Best regards, — CharlieEchoTango — 03:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a collection of events, any notable accidents are already listed at Lists of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft. Nothing particularly peculiar about the use of ejection seats in Canadian use, military aircraft have ejection seats and sometimes they are used. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this directory of ejections is excellent work on the part of the author, but should be on a private website, not Wikipedia, as it is a collection of non-notable events; even with loss of life and loss of airframe, most likely did not lead to significant changes in procedure or regulation. In addition, the article could easily be seen as a memorial wall, which is not what Wikipedia is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
In what specific way do you believe WP:INDISCRIMINATE is met by this list? Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this is unencyclopedic information that does not fall within the remit of Wikipedia, i.e. that, being a discriminate collection of information, this article falls outside that discrimination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep arguments for deletion are unconvincing, and rely on specific interpretations of derived guidelines that do not mesh well with their purposes. AIRCRASH is for individual incidents, and NOTMEMORIAL does not prevent listing people who were killed when the topic covers such deaths. It's unhelpful to say "well, that's great research, but it doesn't belong here" when V, the GNG, and RS are all apparently met. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I moved the article to a more descriptive and inclusive title. However if it is to be kept, the article should be expanded so that it doesn't only cover incidents since 1972 (what about those prior to the unification) and only fighters/trainers (helicopter crash-landing re Afghanistan 2010, etc). What is the encyclopedic value of a list of fighter jet ejections and engine failures? — CharlieEchoTango — 23:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a better title - but moving articles at AfD causes admin headaches. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Combatcam152 did a good job with this table. I gave thought to suggesting that the table be kept, collapsed and placed under a sub-section "Accidents and incidents" in the Royal Canadian Air Force article. But I think its better to delete it. The sourcing (http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/) is too weak. I have visited this site and taken what is written at face value. But the standards for reliable sources, WP:RS, require something better than this website for determining what factual information to include in Wikipedia. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the subject of this article does tread the trivia line very closely, the key issue for me is the lack of reliable references. I have removed two personal self-published websites from the article which are clearly not acceptable references, but the use of http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/ is troublesome. This is clearly a one person, self-published "hobbiest" website. These sorts of sites have been debated before and found lacking as reliable sources due to the lack of editorial oversight and independent fact-checking. So while whether this list fails WP:TRIVIA or WP:INDISCRIMINATE can be debated, it clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:N right now as it lacks acceptable references to establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 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 no consensus. v/r - T P 02:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics Design[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable company; heavy COI involvement. Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had this debate before, and it was crushed, because it implies that a company whose technology has been used to make tens of millions of dollars, is used internationally, has many media references, is quoted in masters and PHD thesis, has a technology which predates most modular robotic technologies and is far more efficient than even the newest ones, and is most certainly used in far more products sold, rather than toys or research robots, is not notable. You have no reason for the deletion other than the COI, which is only a problem if there is a non neutral point of view, as stated in Wikipedia rules. If I live in Canada, and state that it is the best country in the world, that is a COI. If I live in Canada and state that it is a country, that is not. This page has been up for years, and may not, or will it be deleted for your absurdities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 01:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not have this discussion again. You may read all about it at the talk page of Robotics Design. If this is an attempt to scare me into caving for ANAT technology, you are a detriment to wikipedia. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Le Journal de Montréal and La Presse (the two largest newspapers in the city) have absolutely no mention of it, and the references cited are either associated with the subject or are about related topics, such as BIXI. — CharlieEchoTango — 02:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Based on the GNG evidence provided at [17] and related pages, I am willing to change my vote to keep. As a native French speaker, I can vouch for the validity of all the sources, but the ones I can see that are specifically relevant to asserting notability are La Presse, Québec Science, Sud-Ouest, Le monde informatique and L'hebdo Magazine. I am however uncomfortable with the conflict of interest and consequent level of involvement of the editor, but AfD being content-related, this is not really a valid concern. That being said, the article needs cleanup specifically with regards to over citation in some areas, lack of citations in others, some impression of puffery in the way the awards are mentioned, and probably too many technical details in the Mobile Robots section. — CharlieEchoTango — 06:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constuctive comments. I will review te sources in the coming week, and will try to streamline mobile robots to make it sound clearer, and less technical.Canadiansteve (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone else who said the same, or a major rewrite to at least attempt to sound neutral. (I have no idea why this is relevant to me, and have not been an active editor for a long time, but apparently my opinion was wanted.) --scgtrp (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Depth of coverage meets WP:CORPDEPTH, see references section in article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Except most of the acceptable references (e.g. third-party) don't even mention Robotics Design. — CharlieEchoTango — 02:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
::In fact, save for the "awards", only ref no. 8 ([18]) is truly third-party and of significance, and nowhere does the article mention Robotic Designs. All the other references are either written by Robotics Design's people, save for another one which is specialized coverage (e.g. École de technologie supérieures). Hardly depth of coverage. — CharlieEchoTango — 02:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Striked comments. — CharlieEchoTango — 06:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La presse has mentionned Robotics Design before. So has journal de montreal. That they are in regards to something the company created two patens for is a bonus. These are the media sources that mention Robotics Design and they MOST CERTAINLY are not "all written by Robotics Design's people" http://www.roboticsdesign.qc.ca/assets/Uploads/PDF-content/InThePress/AL13Interview.pdf

Note that artilces written in German have not been included here, and will be posted when I finish the page in German, and the website, too.

The fact that most articles don't mention Robotics Design is implied notability. They mention what it contributes to society, which is a lot, making it notable.

As for a mojor re-write, fantasic. Tell me what needs to be re-written, or what is not neutral. That is no reason for deletion. And to call all these other media sources other than Sudwest non-notable is a grave insult indeed.

This technology was nominated for national awards, and was notminated for more in two categories recently. The company is notable, the things it does are notable, and the things it makes are notable and do notable things. The only argument you have is the COI, which is not grounds for deletion, it is grounds for clean-up, a project that nobody has even done, they have only said to delete it. Yes deleting it would neutralize it, but not make it neutral.

Why is it that you want this page deleted so dearly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 02:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this era of Photoshop, purported references that are actually links to the subject's own website are worth less than the pixels they are displayed with. If these are legitimate press articles, then provide links to the articles on the publisher's website, not your own. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for implying that I am a liar, a plagiarist, a copyright infringer, and a journalistic hoax. I wrote the article and do whatever I can for this and other companies for 12 dollars an hour in my free time after class, and I really look forward to people encouraging me for my work which I do to improve the country I love and the society around me. Some magazines do not offer a online version of every page of their magazine without payment, but sections like this have been approved to be hosted, if the company does it for free. Ill let you trash my reputation as an honest, well meaning person all you want, mister, but do not insult the reputation of the company, who deals with other companies where integrity is a critical factor is doing any kind of business that will improve North America. I could take the page and host it somewhere else if you like, or you can go buy the magazine, and then not scan it or put it anywhere because that would be copyright infringement because you do not have approval from the magazine, and that would prove to you that I didn't defraud a magazine and the world in regards to me truly writing an article. P.s. I do not get paid anything to write articles on wikipedia, nor does this mean that that the articles on the website are copyright infringement, the company has special permission from the magazine to repost the article in its orgininal form.Canadiansteve (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The patents protecting this technology make the most claims out of any in the insitute they were made. (at the time, definately) Is that not notable?Canadiansteve (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a patent for using a laser pointer to entertain a cat. That doesn't make the cat or the laser pointer notable. Eeekster (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is one claim. If that laser could make the cat write an essay, as well as entertain, it would be. To compare a technology that is being applied to create a entire factory that builds, assembles and stores in a truck for transport without human labour to feline entertainment is an insult. You can insult well, of that you are the champ, but can you engage in a debate with evidence?Canadiansteve (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is hosted on our website, it does not mean it was done by us, by the way.Canadiansteve (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of these count as significant coverage in reliable sources? http://www.roboticsdesign.qc.ca/media-center/inthepress/presshvac/ Dream Focus 05:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And thank you for actually taking the time to read, it is mighty refreshing. We also have a televion source when we were featured in what was known as the world's most important conference on robotics, but we no longer host the video, though I could have it sent privately. Canadiansteve (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH - it is unusual to see so much self publicity obscuring the lack of any significant independent reporting. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement, albeit a carefully crafted —conceiled perhaps?— one. It could perhaps be a different matter if (after almost 15 years now) this would produce something relevant, which it does not seem to do. (What made me come here) - DVdm (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point... I could care less if Robotics Design is the "Canadian Microsoft". Canadiansteve could show me a link in which Stephen Harper makes a speech to Parliament praising the contributions of Robotics Design and I would still say delete. Canadiansteve's lack of civility, constant badgering of those in this discussion (as well as this one) and canvassing scream out major COI. Vive le Wikipedia libre. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 11:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is not the article now? Dont hate me, I tried to respond to questions, not badger, just I don't like hearing or saying the same thing twice.Canadiansteve (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is part of the problem. The other part of the equation is the author of the article who has a serious conflict of interest. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 18:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am your problem. That part I understand. What is the other part?Canadiansteve (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've voted delete in eleven other Afd's. How come you're the only one who's taken it personally? VictorianMutant^(Talk) 23:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take you avoiding my questions as a sign of reluctant consent. You called this article a problem. Does it have a problem or it just very bad for you? Calling me a problem is saying you disapprove of my character, which is personal, and I'll take that as such. I forgive you, now would you please contribute by making constructive criticism, (point at details, don't make everyone guess how WP:'s apply) or do you have no understanding of this topic and/or is this issue is a personal matter to you? Canadiansteve (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sud Ouest is reliable source. Other major news outlets do reference them as such. [19] Not sure about the others, it hard to search for foriegn language sources, but they seem to be actual publications. Dream Focus 13:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, fyi, "sud ouest" simply means "south west," and the google search you link to above is a random grouping of all appearances of it, regardless of context. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Others link to the Sud Ouest article above, I not feeling the need to copy and paste it yet again. I was commenting on where someone said they weren't notable, I stating that they are a reliable source, and stating that some other news sources do comment on them. And my link shows this if you look at just those places it is capitalized, such as the New York Times talking about them [20]. Dream Focus 02:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be sufficient 3rd party sources within the References section to establish notability. (Maybe the company's internal News & Event and Product Spec pages could be moved to external links to allow the actual independent sources to be more visible?) AllyD (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Business makes robots that sweep industrial ducts, mostly. Despite their heroic efforts to publicize themselves, there's no showing that this particular business has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture; and where the amply demonstrated possibility of conflict of interest exists, we should insist on long term significance before a business gets its own article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Robotics Design also makes giant snake arms that carry 1000kg, like the one they sold to Hydro-Quebec. These mobile robots can also be used for bomb disposal. Instead of long-term, how about major significance to the companies that use the products? Some of them have had the products for a while, and they have influenced the way the duct cleaning business works in Montreal. Instead of manual workers, there are robots with cameras, so the main problem that clients report in duct cleaning of not being able to ensure the entire job is done well is eliminated. Hydro Quebec also reduced the down-time of one of the most productive hydro-electric stations in the world, the Robert Bourassa Generating station, thanks to Robotics Design. Robotics Design has many patents, and has had a singificant effect on the world, though its hard to argue that it changed the history or culture of the world, it did have an effect on technology, because it invented technologies. Technology has been significant impacted by ANAT technology, whether or not it has been deployed in every culture in the world for all of history. History is obsured in the present, and only abjectly distinguishable from the future, anyways. It only pages that significanly changed history and culture by making everywhere the technology could be used use the technology, there would not be many articles on wikipedia. Your comment reads like a heroic excuse for your vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 03:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of references. Biscuittin (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No there aren't, most google links to RD have nothing to do with this company.Greglocock (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions I have rarely seen a less productive attitude than the one shown by the article's owner. Despite that wiki is not a popularity contest and the existence of this article should not really be affected by his attitude. Firstly it needs a name change to Robotics Design Inc, as Robotics Design is a field of engineering, primarily. Secondly it needs a rewrite to remove all hints of the awesomeness of the products.Greglocock (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well OK I gave in and gave it a quick red pencilling. IF the company satisfies notability, not a subject i have an opinion on, then it doesn't look too bad really. I don't see a COI problem with the article, I see an attitude and ownership problem, which are not good deletion reasons. Greglocock (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the red pencilling. I went to the section and linked it to other wikipedia pages to try to clarify things. Watch the video at roboticsdesign,ca's entry page in anything but IE and you'll "get" the technology, but it is very hard to explain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company and its products seem notable enough for an article, but I do think, as suggested above, that it needs moving to Robotic Designs Inc. Similarly, due to the CoI shown by Canadiansteve I believe he should be precluded from directly editing the article and should limit himself to necessary technical comments and suggestions on the article's talk page and allowing non-conflicted editors to supply the prose. I've also made a start de-stoatifying and copy-editing the existing text. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:Reliable. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COI suggestion Both sides need to reread WP:COI, and experienced wiki editors in particular need to have a rethink about their negative attitude and stop bandying it about as if it is the be all and end all as regards policy for the existence of this article. There is NOTHING in WP:COI that says canadiansteve can't create and edit the article. It says (roughly) is he needs to be careful, and work with other editors. He appears to be working with me, at least.Greglocock (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please say what changes need to be made to the article to make it acceptable. Biscuittin (talk) 14:26, 10 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) 14:41, 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. causa sui (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Student Web Design Awards[edit]

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

Subject has received almost no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 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) 00:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonnotable per nom. Neutrality^talk 04:37, 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. Reliable sources have been found. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mingus[edit]

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

A security guard at the Nevada Test Site and Area 51. All references lead back to one book by Annie Jacobsen. There are some refs not directly to the book, but they either talk about the book or to Jacobsen talking about the book. Those refs only talk about Minus in passing. Unable to find any references outside of the book. I'm unable to see why he is notable and he also fails GNG. Speedy delete was declined. Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article's Orginal Author Notes[edit]

The startrek.com reference and the NPR reference is an interview transcript and not from the book. Please keep in mind much of this has recently been declassified so the majority of information revealed in this book is new to the public. Other references such as National Geographic "Area 51 Declassified" offer first hand interviews with people who actually worked there. It relies on the integrity of the show's publisher and station to follow traditional journalistic referencing as noted in the credits and bears witness to their public reputation.

I will continue to groom this NEW page for diverse references but please do not delete it. The person and topic is an important component of the history of black military programs of the united states.

The article makes no libel or negative gestures to this living person and would not typically be considered objectionable.

Also, please bear with me. I'm used to modifying wiki's but I'm new to navigating the vigorous process of getting an article through general adoption. I would appreciate guidance on my talk page rather than simply deleting the article. Thanks.

Jimerb (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm not sure that being around but not involved with a lot of notable events makes that person notable, although giving a bunch of interviews to ask about those events may make it seem as if he is. But how many other guards were working at Area 51 while these events occurred? Are they notable? Why is a security guard there notable but not a janitor? I'm tending to go with the notability is not inherited argument here. Rnb (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: KEEP - There are only a handful of people in the united states who ever worked on this base during the cold war. Most are deceased. That makes his experiences noteworthy as projects become declassified.

Mingus was responsible for securing dozens of nuclear tests and as written, one of them that he was chiefly responsible for became a significant national security incident (the base came under attack during a live nuke test) escalating all the way up to President Reagan. He was also involved with securing a crashed nuclear soviet satellite. During the cold war, the security of this base was a top national security priority. The U2 program was the most important government project the united states was sponsoring and it's secrecy (via security) was key in preventing nuclear Armageddon. Mingus was a key figure in the integrity of the base.

The experiences Mingus had are notable in that it teaches us what the government was doing during the cold war. It teaches us about the cold war's very nature -- first hand -- from a unique place.

Also, he WAS involved with many operations on the base. Not just an observer. Because security is responsible for the entire base, security personnel offer a unique view of all of the projects underway at the base. It is discussed in the book that most black projects were "compartmentalized" and only a few (such as Military and CIA brass) knew about all of them. Security was a rare exception as they were the ones responsible for compartmentalizing the base. They therefore got to see what most could not.

There is a tremendous amount of information to this story. Please make sure it is carefully reviewed before deletion. I'd be happy to provide details if they are missing. Janitors don't do these things. Jimerb (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that Mingus is significantly more notable that Bob Lazar who worked at the Nevada test site for only 1 year in only a minor capacity. Lazard has passed the Wikipedia notablity test. 65.51.24.66 (talk) 16:36, 31 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) 00:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Per reliable sources [21], [22], [23], book source [24]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep “A lot of the documents are actually declassified now,” she said. Project 57, the explosion of a dirty bomb at Area 51 that security guard Richard Mingus actually drove through and lived, is one of them. He is mentioned in many places, and even interviewed in one news source NorthAmerica1000 found. Dream Focus 13:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BIO, contains plenty of reliable sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. Johnfos (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BIO, contains reliable sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:02, 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. Tone 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cleveland State Vikings men's basketball opponents[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS. Also due to this previous mass AfD that is about the same types of articles. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New York Giants opponents, the mass AfD cited by the nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. Neutrality^talk 04:37, 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. causa sui (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Bauer Literary Agency[edit]

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

This article started as a means of attacking someone involved in a legal dispute with Wikipedia. It is not about the literary agency at all, save for the involvement with lawsuits against the WMF. Given that the company name incorporates the name of a living person, we should be mindful of the possible effects of retaining this article. Now that time has passed, the desire to punish may have waned (and the case itself is documented in History of Wikipedia).

My primary motivation for nominating the article for discussion now was the recent addition of a link to the legal documents on Wikisource. If this is a notable case (outside the echo chamber of Wikipedia), then the case should have an article, not the company named after an individual. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The community has previously deleted an article on the eponymous head of the agency. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer (2nd nomination). Will Beback talk 19:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems like a WP:COATRACK for the Wikipedia-related section. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume this is going to be WP:OFFICE-spiked in light of the fate of the articles on Bauer. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 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) 00:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I suggest that you consider the comments above as defacto "delete" votes. I am unsure why editors are reluctant to express an opinion about keeping or deleting this particular article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (1) there is no assertion of notability; (2) it's navel-gazing in-house bunk. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnotable entity. One lawsuit does not make notability. Naval-gazing. Basically a work-around of the deletion of the article on the person Barbara Baur, which since that has apparently been deleted for good reason, and she doesn't want an article -- she sued us for chrissakes -- is not very kind. I consider this basically a BLP issue. It should go. Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 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) 19:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Magic (game)[edit]

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

Article about a game, without any reliable sources to back it up. Karada (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:18, 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) 00:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This is really hard to search for a RS. There are a large number of sources showing up on a Google search, so it's real. But I can't find a RS. I'm very unsure I would be able to find any that did exist though given that all the keywords and phrases (pattern, "black magic" etc. are so common). Hobit (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence at all of notability. There don't seem to be any reliable sources available anywhere, as far as I can make out, and since the article has been tagged for sources since February 2009, there has been plenty of time to find them. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 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 keep. causa sui (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Mark Noe[edit]

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

I'm questioning the notability of the topic. I appreciate that he taught at Harvard Medical School, but look at http://hms.harvard.edu/admissions/default.asp?page=faculty; the faculty at Harvard Medical School numbers over 11,000, and full-time faculty alone accounts for 8,259. I also appreciate that he was editor of several journals, but again there are thousands of journal editors. I don't see how these achievements alone make the subject worthy of an encyclopedia article.

The only statement I see here as making the subject notable is the fact that he "founded one of the nation's first burn units and argon laser programs." Unfortunately, this fact is not supported by the single reference provided. Further, searches of Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, Bing News and Bing books don't turn up any sources which can be used to support the claim either. You can even try searching the website of Beth Israel where he supposedly founded the burn unit and no results are turned up.

The first line of the article also refers to Noe as a "pioneering plastic surgeon". The article then describes an argon laser technique he used to remove birthmarks. Pioneering would suggest that Dr Noe made significant advances in his field. But the article at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ovAcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ymcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6403,1957398&dq=joel+mark+noe&hl=en credits a Doctor Leon Goldman as having developed the argon laser techinque which is described in the article; Noe simply used it. Perhaps Noe refined this technique to the point where it was usable but this news article does not explicitly say this. It is clear from the news article that the technique was an important development in plastic surgery but if Noe is notable enough to have an article simply for using the new technique then I think Leon Goldman deserves an article for developing the technique. But Leon Goldman doesn't have an article.

Perhaps Noe made significant advances in other ways. A Google Scholar search does yield numerous articles which he cowrote. But again, there are thousands and thousands of medical articles written every year and not every single article represents a significant advance in medicine. Does one of these articles truly represent something which has transformed plastic surgery? There needs to be evidence that this is the case.

Even if the article was notable, I'm thrown by the single reference, which is written about a "Howard Noe" - the article is about a "Joel Mark Noe." Furthermore, large portions of the article are lifted word-for-word from an obituary which appeared in the Boston Globe in 1991 found here: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/59267554.html?FMT=ABS&date=Sep 15, 1991. Is this reprinted with permission? Is the author of the obituary the author of this article?

I would suggest rewriting the article so it does not plagiarize the Boston Globe and includes significant sources but even with a rewrite, I still firmly believe the subject is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Sssss snake (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)— Sssss snake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching GS with "J Noe", I find eight articles with over 100 citations; enough to satisfy WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sure but two of those are written by a "JD Noe" and one by a "Roger Noe"... I mean yeah he wrote some articles cited by 100+ others but how many people in the world have written articles cited by 100 people who don't have Wikipedia articles about them? 139.140.214.138 (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — 139.140.214.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I ignored those ones and counted only those by the subject. If you think I made a mistake let us know what you get. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

My final count is 6. I'm not trying to be picky, I'm sure it doesn't make any difference whether he wrote 6 articles cited by 100+ or 8. Either way I wasn't sure whether this is a significant contribution to the scientific community. But you know better than I do I'm sure - is having more than 5 articles cited by 100 relatively rare? 139.140.214.138 (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty rare (certainly above average, which is the test), depending on the field of study, and although I have not counted the rest of them to get an h-index I would feel that this gives a pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Noe JM" gets 50 hits in Web of Science, with a total of 1027 citations and an h-index of 15. While perhaps a tad at the low side for this high-citation field, this is explained by the fact that he stopped publishing in 1989 (older articles get cited less and the number of citations to new papers is growing every year -in part because of the growth of the scientific literature: more articles being published, so more citations to go around). Meet WP:PROF#C1. --Crusio (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no referenced statement indicating a major impact in any field. The number of published articles is not a valid argument, as this doesn't reflect impact in the field in any way. Publishing research is a normal part of a professor's job, not a sign of notability. His work was probably laudable, and it is tragic that he died so young, but there is no indication anywhere that he had any significant impact. The only articles with 100+ citations are from the early 80s. If the work was really that groundbreaking, I would have expected a few thousand citations for the highest-cited article at least, especially in a huge field like port wine stains. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my opinion to Keep, taking account of this source (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lsm.1900120317/pdf) which corroborates that he founded the Beth Israel burn unit. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 15:20, 14 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, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr Noe passed away before the advent of the public internet, so his is rarely mentioned, discussed, or cited, and therefore his online presence should not be a factor. As a member of the reconstructive surgery community, I can vouch for the well-accepted fact that Dr Noe was a major player, and his work is still VERY influential. Physicians who are training to become plastic surgeons will certainly come across Dr Noe's methods, and his contemporaries still speak very highly of him and his work, and I can say that as someone who works in the field but was too young to work directly with him, I was excited to find this page and learn more about the man. Please keep this article, and assist its authors in making it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.52.134 (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on several criteria: editor of major journal in his subject, full professor at a leading medical school, founder of a major unit at their main hospital, originator of a subject. Needs expansion. Publishing research is a part of a professors job, and those who are particularly good at it are notable . Playing music is a musician's job, and we don't rule out notability for musicians based on their music; obviously a musician is unlikely to become notable except for their music. A researcher is unlikely to become notable for anything except doing research and publishing papers. In previous discussions, we've usually held that any researcher in any subject with papers with over 100 citations is notable; asking for thousands, is the equivalent of famous-- which would make us a very much abridged encyclopedia . I cannot find any article on port wine stains that has more than 300 references in Google Scholar, so asking for "thousands" in a field like this is more than just famous, it eliminates the possibility of anyone being notable for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, asking for 1000's was a bit over the top, but only asking for 100 is a bit on the low side, as this would include a large number of postdocs as well, not to mention almost anyone who has their name on a genome sequence from a few years ago. Either way, there is no evidence that the subject was 'particularly good at' publishing papers; he seems to have been average. Maybe Dr Noe was a notable full Harvard professor, founded a major unit, and originated a subject. I at least could find no evidence of these things. The only link to Harvard I could find is that he was an assistant professor there. If he founded a burn unit, I can't find any evidence for it. It is also unclear which subject he has originated. If someone could find reliable sources that corroborate any of the claims I would be happy to change my opinion, ~~but at the moment I agree with the nominator.~~ Also, who is Howard Noe? 109a152a8a146 (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Howard Noe was Dr Joel Noe's distant cousin, and was accidentally listed on Dr Noe's obituary in Boston Globe the day after his death (confirmed by Boston Globe assistant editors, corrected 9/16/91). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.52.134 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I found that really confusing. Can you correct the link in the article? 109a152a8a146 (talk) 15:05, 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 to delete. The views below are split, even discounting weak/spa "votes". Eluchil404 (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Barnes (minister)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. yes he's written a few books but none of which are of significant acclaim in wider press (not just Christian circles) to meet WP:AUTHOR. non Christian coverage is about him making comments in the media. cannot find detailed coverage in press about him as subject [25] and in major Australian search engine trove [26]. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 65 mentions to the reverend on the Sydney Morning Herald. Trove shows two mentions for him in The Australian. Coverage in two papers suggests wider coverage likely. Beyond that, quantity of Sydney Morning herald references meets WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

almost all of those google SMH hits refer to another person eg news corp employee, or Australia's Peter Barnes, current chairman of Ansell, or Leading Australian photographer Peter Barnes not the same Peter Barnes the church Minister. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not about to wade through 65 refs that may or may not be about this particular man, but taking merely the dozen or so refs actually cited in the article, there are quite a number of "Letters to the Editor" (not RSS), church newsletters / websites (not RSS), primary sources like his CV (not RSS), and an online store where his book is sold (not RSS). The remainder (Christians call for parents to do the caning (SMH), Caning Kids (ABC radio), and The education department has lost control of our public classrooms (the Telegraph)) are really pushing the definition of "significant coverage", in my opinion. He is mentioned merely as a caning advocate, there's nothing much actually about him or that demonstrates notability. It's not incumbent on editors at an AFD to find sufficient refs to save the article.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding the keyword "Presbyterian" to the search finds 4 mentions of Peter Barnes on smh.com.au, and 3 on theage.com.au (those are the biggest Sydney and Melbourne papers). There have been other mentions that aren't online, given Barnes' public statements on several issues of community interest. There are reviews of his books in not only Australian, but also American and English media (e.g. [27], [28]). Love him or hate him, Barnes is certainly one of Australia's more notable religious figures. -- 202.124.72.59 (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Love him or hate him is irrelevant, one of the sources you give is a blog. Coverage is him making comments not about him as subject . Love him or hate him he definitely lacks indepth reliable coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and the other is a "Presbyterian Journal". Not reliable, not secondary. I get two results with that search at the SMH, both letters. This and this from The Age both just have him making brief comment on an abortion issue - fine for referencing his views thereon once notability is demonstrated, but not significant enough to satisfy GNG. If you have any appropriate sources, please link to them here, because this search seems to generate scads of false positives. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable or secondary? Are you serious? That second link is a recognised theological journal, produced by a US seminary which is (1) completely unaffiliated and (2) on the other side of the planet from Barnes. -- 202.124.72.105 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After searching gnews and NewsBank, I agree with LibStar's and Yeti Hunter's assessments. There are no independent reliable sources that cover Barnes in significant detail, so he does not pass the general notability guideline. He only has passing mentions in independent RSs (e.g. "Presbyterian minister, Peter Barnes commented that abortion is murder"), and none of the articles are primarily about Barnes. Jenks24 (talk) 23:04, 31 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, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have to agree with LibStar here. He's certainly an advocate of ~~beating children~~ corporal punishment, and he's been quoted a couple of times, but there's no significant coverage of him as a person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Notable author, based on his publications. WP:PCNOM, my own proposed term for wanting to delete an article about someone or something that does not conform to the conventional socially liberal values. (It is meant as a NONREASON, not as indicating the motives of any particular nominator or any particular contributor.) DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

which criteria of WP:AUTHOR does he meet? You are simply saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. As an admin I expect more.LibStar (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is an argument that the "Presbyterian Journal" in which he was reviewed constitutes "widespread academic discussion of his work" or whatever the policy term is. It's a book review. One book review does not a notable author make.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:58, 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.